TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 quashed as time barred under Section 149 limitation period</h1> <h3>Pritam Kumar Versus DCIT Central Circle-19 (1) New Delhi</h3> The ITAT Delhi held that the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was time barred as per the limitation prescribed ... Reopening of assessment - Notice issued u/s 148 - 'time barred' as per the limitation prescribed u/s 149 - replacement of old regime for re-assessment with a new regime - TOLA - HELD THAT:- In, the present case the notice was issued for the A.Y. 2015-2016 on 23-07-2022 beyond the period of limitation. Respectfully following the decision of Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] we hold that the notice issued to the assessee dated 23-07-2022 u/s 148 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 is time barred. The legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed. ISSUES: Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment is barred by limitation under Section 149 of the Act.Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated without Document Identification Number (DIN) on the notice under Section 148 are valid.Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 without proper sanction as prescribed in Section 151 of the Act is valid.Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 without valid information and independent application of mind are valid.Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated in contravention of Section 151A of the Act are valid.Whether the addition under Section 69 of the Act based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) is justified when transactions are through proper banking channels and stock exchange regulations.Whether the order passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard violates the principle of natural justice. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 23-07-2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 is 'time barred' as per the limitation prescribed under Section 149, since the limitation expired on 31-03-2022.The reassessment notice issued without Document Identification Number (DIN) is liable to be quashed.Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 without proper sanction under Section 151 are invalid.Reassessment proceedings initiated without valid information and without independent application of mind are 'bad and liable to be quashed'.Proceedings initiated in contravention of Section 151A are erroneous and not sustainable.The addition of Rs. 50,49,975/- under Section 69 on the basis of alleged bogus LTCG is not justified where transactions have been conducted through proper banking channels and in accordance with stock exchange rules.Passing of orders without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard violates the principle of natural justice and is erroneous. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Sections 147, 148, 149, 151, and 151A, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) as interpreted by the Supreme Court.The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Ors vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 must comply with the new regime and the time limits prescribed therein, and that TOLA provides overriding relaxation only within its applicable period.The Court noted that for the assessment year 2015-16, notices issued after 31-03-2022 fall outside the limitation period even considering TOLA, making the reassessment notice dated 23-07-2022 invalid.The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards, including issuance of notices with DIN, proper sanction, and adherence to principles of natural justice.The Court observed that reassessment cannot be initiated on vague or unverified information without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.The Court recognized that additions under Section 69 require substantiation, and transactions through proper banking channels and stock exchange compliance negate the presumption of bogus income.The Court did not adjudicate on other grounds as the primary issue of limitation was dispositive.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
