2025 (10) TMI 92 - AT - Income Tax

Notice under Section 148 dated 08.07.2022 quashed as time-barred under Section 149; reassessment proceedings invalidated

ITAT DELHI (AT) held the notice issued under section 148 dated 08.07.2022 was barred by the period specified in section 149 and quashed the reassessment ... Reopening of assessment - period of limitation in issuing the for notice u/s 148 - Extended Period of Limitation as per IT Act read with TOLA - HELD THAT:- After the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal [2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT] AO issued letter u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022 fixing date for compliance on 09.06.2022, which fact is evident from notice u/s 148A(b) of IT Act. The assessee has not made compliance of the said notice as same was never served as per the Assessee. AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 08.07.2022 and proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08.07.2022. Now the question that arises for consideration as to whether the subsequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 08.07.2022 is to be treated as time barred or not in the light of decision of Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] We are of the opinion that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 08/07/2022 is barred by the period specified u/s 149 of the Act, consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after substitution of Section 148 (w.e.f. 01.04.2021) but purporting to follow an earlier notice issued under the pre-amendment provision is barred by the time-limit prescribed by Section 149. 2. Whether time periods excluded or suspended by (a) the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA/notification) and (b) judicial decisions (notably the Supreme Court rulings on the validity of notices issued under the old provisions) operate to extend the limitation for issuance of a notice under Section 148 so as to validate a notice issued after 31.03.2021. 3. Whether the interlocutory steps mandated by Section 148A (issuance of notice under Section 148A(b), the period for response, and order under Section 148A(d)) must be completed within the remaining period of limitation available for issuance of the Section 148 notice, and the consequence of failure to do so. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Time-bar of Section 148 notice issued post-substitution of Section 148 Legal framework: Section 149 prescribes the period of limitation for issuance of a notice under Section 148; the legislative substitution of Section 148 effective 01.04.2021 changed the procedure for initiation of reassessment. TOLA (statutory notification) extended certain timelines falling within 20.03.2020-31.12.2020 till 30.06.2021. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on two Supreme Court decisions addressing the validity/timing of notices issued under the pre- and post-amendment framework: the decision holding that pre-amendment notices could not be issued after 31.03.2021, and the later decision elucidating how exclusionary periods affect computation of limitation for issuance of Section 148 notices. Coordinate Tribunal and High Court decisions applying those ratios were followed. Interpretation and reasoning: Where a notice under the old provision had been issued before 01.04.2021 but remained uncompleted, the substitution of Section 148 and the Supreme Court pronouncements require careful computation of the remaining period of limitation under Section 149. The Court treated the earlier (pre-amendment) notice as having consumed the limitation available up to the date extended by TOLA; consequently, any subsequent notice issued after the remaining truncated period expired is time-barred. The Court read the exclusionary principles (from the Supreme Court decisions) to allow suspension of the running of limitation for specified intervals (period between Supreme Court decision and issuance of Section 148A(b); and the time allowed to the assessee to reply), but held that such excluded periods do not replenish or enlarge the originally remaining days of limitation beyond what Section 149 permits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A Section 148 notice issued after the expiry of the period available under Section 149 (after accounting for TOLA extensions and judicially-excluded intervals) is time-barred even if preceded by prior pre-amendment action; exclusionary intervals do not create a new, open-ended window permitting issuance beyond the truncated remaining days. Obiter - Observations on procedural propriety of particular dates in the factual chart are ancillary to the legal ratio. Conclusion: The impugned notice dated 08.07.2022 is barred by limitation under Section 149 when computed in light of TOLA and controlling Supreme Court authority; reassessment proceedings based on that notice are quashed. Issue 2 - Effect of TOLA and judicial exclusions on limitation computation Legal framework: TOLA extended statutory timelines falling within the pandemic-affected period to 30.06.2021. Section 149 contains provisos allowing exclusion of certain periods. Judicial decisions subsequently clarified that periods between a Supreme Court decision and steps taken by the AO (e.g., issuance of Section 148A(b)) and the time granted to the assessee to respond are to be excluded in computing limitation. Precedent treatment: The Court followed the Supreme Court's approach (as applied in subsequent authoritative rulings and adopted by coordinate benches and the Jurisdictional High Court) that: (i) TOLA extension is relevant; (ii) the period between the Supreme Court decision in favour of the assessee and the AO's action under Section 148A(b) is excluded; and (iii) the period allowed to the assessee to reply to Section 148A(b) is excluded, but these exclusions operate only to suspend running of the truncated remainder of the original limitation period - they do not grant a fresh full limitation period under Section 149. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that TOLA left a fixed, reduced number of days of limitation available to the AO on the date reassessment proceedings had effectively commenced. The AO was obligated to complete the Section 148A(d) order and issue the Section 148 notice within those remaining days (subject to judicially-recognized exclusions). If the AO failed to pass the Section 148A(d) order and issue the Section 148 notice within that truncated timeframe (accounting for excluded days), the subsequent issuance is beyond the statutory period permitted by Section 149. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Exclusionary provisions and judicially recognized suspensions affect the computation but do not enlarge the truncated remaining period; the AO must exercise the remaining limited time to complete Section 148A(d) and issue the Section 148 notice. Obiter - Detailed numeric examples in other judgments reproduced by the Court are illustrative but not determinative beyond the stated principle. Conclusion: Applying TOLA and judicial exclusions reduces but does not reset the limitation period; in the present facts those computations render the 08.07.2022 notice time-barred. Issue 3 - Requirement to complete Section 148A stages within available limitation and consequences of non-completion Legal framework: Section 148A prescribes preliminary steps (notice under Section 148A(b), opportunity to be heard, and a decision under Section 148A(d)) prior to issuance of a notice under Section 148. Section 149 prescribes limitation for issuance of a Section 148 notice; its provisos permit exclusion of certain periods. Precedent treatment: The Court followed the reasoning of higher courts and coordinate tribunals that the time required for completion of Section 148A steps must be drawn from the time remaining under Section 149; the AO cannot treat the separate timelines in Section 148A as creating an independent window which extends Section 149 limitation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that although Section 148A(d) contemplates a period (e.g., end of the month following reply) for passing the decision, that procedural allowance cannot conflict with the overarching limitation framework of Section 149. Where only a truncated number of days remained (after TOLA and other exclusions), the AO was required to pass the Section 148A(d) order and issue the Section 148 notice within those truncated days. Failure to do so means the later notice is issued after expiry of limitation and is therefore void. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 148A procedural timelines must be accommodated within the limitation period of Section 149; the AO cannot rely on the Section 148A time allowances to extend limitation beyond what Section 149 permits. Obiter - Comments on whether the fourth proviso to Section 149 applies in particular numeric scenarios are contextual and not universally binding. Conclusion: The AO's order under Section 148A(d) and subsequent Section 148 notice issued beyond the truncated limitation were invalid; reassessment is quashed as void ab initio. Cross-references and final holding All issues were considered together: the Court applied TOLA, the exclusionary principles recognized by Supreme Court decisions, and the requirement to complete Section 148A steps within the remaining Section 149 period. Following authoritative precedent and coordinate decisions, the Court concluded that the impugned Section 148 notice dated 08.07.2022 was barred by limitation and that the reassessment proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed.