2025 (6) TMI 1540 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment notice under Section 148 invalid when escaped income below Rs. 50 lakh threshold for reopening beyond 3 years

Ankita Ashok Wairkar Versus ITO-42 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice under Section 148 issued after 3 years was invalid. The AO added Rs. 22,32,379/- as escaped income, which was ... Validity of the reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 - same issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year - limit prescribed by Section 149(1)(b) - Assessee failed to explain the source of the investment by not filing the return of income - Whether the reopening of the assessment is valid in terms of Section 149(1)(b) - escaped assessment - HELD THAT:- The ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 22,32,379/- which is no doubt the quantum of income which has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. The argument enhanced by the ld. DR that though for the impugned year the income escaped assessment is less, the overall sale consideration is beyond Rs. 50,00,000/-. We are not convinced with this contention of the ld. DR for the reason that the provision that was applicable during this period was that income escaped assessment should have been more than Rs. 50,00,000/- ‘for that year’ which clearly implies that the limit of income which has escaped assessment has to be considered qua the year under consideration and not the total sale consideration. From the legal dictum of Sanath Kumar Murali [2023 (6) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], it is evident that only the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment has to be Rs. 50,00,000/- or more for the purpose of reopening which has to be qua the impend year and not the entire sale consideration. Even otherwise, the ld. AO has made an addition only to the extent of the part payment made towards the purchase of the property by the assessee during the impugned year which is much lesser than the limit prescribed by Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. We find no ambiguity in the provisions of law were the intent of the legislature is very clearly worded. We therefore, deem it fit to hold that the notice u/s. 148 is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the time limit for notice u/s. 148 is available if 3 years but not more than 10 years have lapsed only when the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amounts to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which condition is not satisfied in assessee’s case were the income which has escaped assessment is much less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. We therefore allow ground no. 2 raised by the assessee on the above observation. As we have quashed the reopening notice, the consequential assessment order is also held to be invalid and therefore, the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is rendered academic and requires no separate adjudication. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:(a) Whether the reopening notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 11.03.2023, is valid in law, given that it was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17), and the income escaping assessment is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-Rs.(b) Whether the reopening notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is validRs.(c) Whether the reopening was validly approved by the higher authority under Section 151 of the ActRs.(d) Whether the Assessing Officer applied independent mind and had tangible material to justify reopening the assessmentRs.(e) Whether the addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- made under Section 69 as unexplained money on account of part payment towards immovable property purchase is justifiedRs.(f) Whether the addition of Rs. 12,32,379/- under Section 69A on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account is justifiedRs.(g) Whether the first appellate authority erred in remanding the matter without adjudicating on the merits and legal grounds raised by the assesseeRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Validity of Reopening Notice under Section 148 after 3 years where escaped income is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act restricts issuance of notice under Section 148 beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer possesses evidence that the income escaping assessment is Rs. 50,00,000/- or more. The proviso mandates that the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- applies to the escaped income for that particular year, not the total transaction value or consideration.The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in Sanath Kumar Murali vs. Income-tax Officer, which held that the term 'income chargeable to tax' under Section 149(1)(b) must be construed strictly to mean the escaped income for the relevant year, not the gross sale consideration or transaction amount.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the reopening notice dated 11.03.2023 was issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2016-17 (the last date being 30.06.2021). The Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 22,32,379/- (aggregate of additions under Sections 69 and 69A) was the quantum of income escaping assessment, which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Department's argument that the total sale consideration of Rs. 57,69,950/- exceeds Rs. 50,00,000/- was rejected as the law requires the escaped income for that year to meet the threshold, not the total consideration.Key evidence and findings: The AO's own additions quantify escaped income at Rs. 22,32,379/-, which is below the statutory threshold. The assessee's contention and documentary evidence regarding sources of funds further supported this quantification.Application of law to facts: Since the escaped income is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the reopening notice issued after three years is invalid under Section 149(1)(b). This renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's reliance on total sale consideration was dismissed as inconsistent with statutory language and judicial precedent. The Tribunal emphasized the plain language of the statute and the binding judicial interpretation.Conclusion: The reopening notice under Section 148 is invalid and bad in law for being issued beyond the three-year period without meeting the Rs. 50,00,000/- escaped income threshold.Issue (b), (c), and (d): Validity of reopening notice issuance by Jurisdictional AO instead of NFAC, approval under Section 151, and application of independent mindThese procedural and jurisdictional grounds were raised by the assessee, challenging the authority and procedure followed in issuing the reopening notice.The Tribunal observed that since the reopening notice itself was quashed on substantive grounds (Issue a), these procedural grounds became academic and did not require separate adjudication. The first appellate authority had not adjudicated these points but remanded the matter for fresh assessment.Hence, no detailed analysis was undertaken on these issues, and they were rendered moot by the quashing of the reopening notice.Issue (e): Addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- under Section 69 as unexplained money on account of part payment for immovable propertyRelevant legal framework: Section 69 deals with unexplained investments. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily account for investments made, the amount can be added as income.Court's reasoning and findings: The AO held that the assessee's husband paid Rs. 16,66,177/- through a housing loan and the balance Rs. 9,95,226/- was unexplained. The assessee contended that the husband had actually paid Rs. 22,75,933/- and the assessee paid Rs. 3,85,470/- from her bank account, supported by bank statements and source of funds.The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to appreciate the documentary evidence showing the husband's payment towards the property and the assessee's contribution. The assessee was a housewife and had only paid a part from her account, which was duly explained.Application of law to facts: Since the payments were adequately explained with supporting evidence, the addition under Section 69 was not justified.Treatment of competing arguments: The AO's mechanical addition without appreciating evidence was criticized.Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- under Section 69 was bad in law.Issue (f): Addition of Rs. 12,32,379/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash depositsRelevant legal framework: Section 69A provides for addition of unexplained cash credits if the assessee fails to explain the nature and source of cash deposits.Court's reasoning and findings: The AO treated cash deposits aggregating Rs. 12,37,153/- as unexplained. The assessee submitted that these deposits were redeposits of cash withdrawals from her own and her husband's bank accounts, supported by a cash book.The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished cogent evidence explaining the source of cash deposits.Application of law to facts: The addition was unjustified in the absence of any material contradicting the assessee's explanation.Conclusion: The addition under Section 69A was not warranted.Issue (g): Remand by first appellate authority without adjudication on merits and legal groundsThe first appellate authority remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment without deciding the legal grounds raised by the assessee, including the validity of reopening.The Tribunal noted this procedural lapse but proceeded to decide the legal issue of validity of reopening on its own, as it was fundamental to the case.Since the reopening notice was quashed, the remand order became academic.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that:'Notice u/s. 148 is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the time limit for notice u/s. 148 is available if 3 years but not more than 10 years have lapsed only when the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amounts to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which condition is not satisfied in assessee's case where the income which has escaped assessment is much less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.'The Tribunal emphasized the plain language of Section 149(1)(b) and judicial precedent that the threshold applies to escaped income for the relevant year, not the total sale consideration.Consequently, the reopening notice issued beyond three years without meeting the threshold was quashed, rendering the reassessment order invalid.Further, the Tribunal found that the additions under Sections 69 and 69A were not justified on facts and evidence, but since the reopening was invalid, these issues became academic.The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.