2025 (8) TMI 44 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening assessment under Section 147 barred as Section 148 notice issued beyond six-year limitation period

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Versus M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd.

The ITAT Delhi held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was barred by limitation as the notice under section 148 was issued beyond six ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - period of limitation - scope of provisions of section 150 - HELD THAT:- We find that there is no dispute in the instant appeal that the assessment under section 153A/143(3) of the Act was not made in the case of the assessee which was later reopened. Undisputedly, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 19.03.2014, which is beyond six years and is, therefore, hit by limitation. We are of the considered view that the provisions of Explanation 3 to section 153 of the Act does not get attracted in the present case as an opportunity of hearing had not been given to the assessee. In such a situation, the normal provisions of limitation prescribed under section 149 of the Act will apply. In the present case, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued beyond six years; therefore, we are of the view that the said notice is barred by limitation. We are of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by the decision of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 317 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES: Whether the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was valid or barred by limitation.Whether the provisions of section 150 of the Act apply to extend the limitation period for reopening the assessment in view of directions passed under section 250 in appeals of other associated persons.Whether the condition of giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an order under section 250 affecting another person is mandatory for invoking the extended limitation under section 150 read with Explanation 3 to section 153(3).Whether the addition made under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure was justified. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The reopening of assessment under section 148 was held to be barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the extended limitation under section 150 was not attracted because the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard before the orders under section 250 were passed in the related appeals.The provisions of section 150(1) of the Act, which allow issuance of notice beyond the normal limitation period in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed under section 250, apply only if the 'other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the order under section 250 was passed,' as mandated by Explanation 3 to section 153(3).The failure to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard before the appellate orders in the cases of associated persons precludes the applicability of the deeming provisions extending limitation under section 150, rendering the notice under section 148 invalid and the reassessment proceedings null and void.The addition made under section 69C was not adjudicated on merits as the reopening itself was quashed on limitation grounds; thus, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld as the issue became academic. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of sections 148, 149, 150, 153(3), and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, focusing on the interplay between limitation periods for reopening assessments and conditions for their extension.Explanation 3 to section 153(3) was interpreted to require that before an order under section 250 excludes income from one person and attributes it to another, the latter must be given an opportunity of being heard; otherwise, the extended limitation under section 150(1) does not apply.The Court relied on precedent emphasizing the principle that 'no prejudice should be caused to anybody without that person having been heard,' thereby reinforcing the mandatory nature of the hearing requirement as a precondition for extension of limitation.The decision aligns with the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., which held that absence of opportunity of hearing negates the triggering of the deeming clause under Explanation 3 and section 150, resulting in application of the normal six-year limitation under section 149.No doctrinal shift was made; rather, the judgment reaffirmed established principles regarding procedural fairness and limitation in tax reassessment proceedings.