AY 2015-16 income reassessment reopening via July 2022 s.148 notice-held time-barred u/s149(1) despite TOLA; quashed.

The dominant issue was whether reassessment for AY 2015-16 could be validly reopened by a notice issued on 27.07.2022, having regard to the limitation under s.149(1) of the IT Act and the claimed extension under TOLA. Applying SC authority holding that TOLA did not extend limitation for such s.148 notices for AY 2015-16, and following consistent HC precedent, the Court held the notice was time-barred and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned reassessment notice and consequential order were set aside.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of Assessment Year 2015-16 after 1 April 2021 are barred by limitation as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA/TOLA-related provisions).

2. Whether the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in the Supreme Court decision concerning the effect of TOLA on limitation (as applied to AY 2015-16) is binding for quashing notices/orders issued post 1 April 2021.

3. Whether earlier High Court decisions applying the Rajeev Bansal concession (including decisions of this Court) are applicable to set aside impugned orders/notices in the present facts.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Legal framework

* The relevant statutory provisions are Section 148 (notice for reopening), Section 148A(d) (order following issue of notice under Section 148A), Section 149 (limitation for reassessment) as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), which provides temporal relief/extension applicable to limitation periods.

* TOLA contains transitional application provisions (TOLA read with Section 3) that affect the computation of limitation for notices issued in the period affected by pandemic-related relaxations.

Issue 1 - Precedent treatment (followed)

* The Court follows the concession recorded in the Supreme Court decision (Rajeev Bansal) that, insofar as AY 2015-16 is concerned, notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 do not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA and therefore must be dropped.

Issue 1 - Interpretation and reasoning

* The Court accepts the legal proposition that, when Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, the effect is that the extended/computed limitation period renders notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 in relation to AY 2015-16 time-barred.

* The Court relies on tabular reasoning in the Rajeev Bansal discussion showing that for AY 2015-16 the six-year limitation period as extended by TOLA does not subsist for notices issued on or after 1 April 2021; consequently such notices cannot be validly sustained.

Issue 1 - Ratio vs. Obiter

* Ratio: The binding ratio adopted is that TOLA, when applied to Section 149 as construed in Rajeev Bansal, results in notices under Section 148 and orders under Section 148A(d) issued on or after 1 April 2021 in respect of AY 2015-16 being time-barred and liable to be quashed.

* Obiter: Ancillary observations on other assessment years and tabular comparisons in the cited decisions are explanatory and not necessary to the specific holding for AY 2015-16 in this judgment.

Issue 1 - Conclusion

* The impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 dated after 1 April 2021 in respect of AY 2015-16 are quashed as barred by limitation when Section 149 is read with TOLA.

Issue 2 - Legal framework

* Authority and effect of concessions made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court; principles of judicial acceptance of concessions and their binding effect on subsequent proceedings.

Issue 2 - Precedent treatment (followed)

* The Court treats the Revenue's concession recorded in Rajeev Bansal as determinative for the factual and legal position relating to AY 2015-16; subsequent Supreme Court allowance of appeals (e.g., Deepak Steel and Power Ltd.) that noted the same concession reinforces its binding effect.

Issue 2 - Interpretation and reasoning

* Where the Revenue concedes that notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 must be dropped, courts may give effect to that concession and set aside the impugned notices/orders without further contested adjudication.

* The Court observes that the concession has been followed and applied in multiple High Court decisions of coordinate and superior authority, supporting immediate quashing of the notices in like cases.

Issue 2 - Ratio vs. Obiter

* Ratio: A recorded concession before the Supreme Court that a class of notices is time-barred under TOLA for AY 2015-16 is binding on subsequent consideration of identical legal and factual issues and compels quashing of such notices.

* Obiter: Discussion of concessions as a general procedural phenomenon is explanatory.

Issue 2 - Conclusion

* The Revenue's concession, as recorded in the Supreme Court decisions relied upon, is applied to hold the impugned notices/orders invalid and to quash them.

Issue 3 - Legal framework

* Principles of precedent within High Courts and reliance on coordinate bench decisions; treatment of earlier decisions applying Rajeev Bansal concerning notices for AY 2015-16.

Issue 3 - Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished)

* The Court follows prior decisions of this Court (including Mectech Knitfabs and Lombard Portfolio) that applied the Rajeev Bansal concession and quashed notices/orders issued post-1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16.

Issue 3 - Interpretation and reasoning

* Given identical statutory provisions and the dispositive concession, there is no room for distinguishing earlier High Court decisions on the point; the reasoning of those decisions is reiterated and applied to the present impugned order and notice.

Issue 3 - Ratio vs. Obiter

* Ratio: High Court precedents applying the Supreme Court concession are binding in similar factual contexts and justify setting aside of later notices/orders for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 1 April 2021.

* Obiter: Any broader commentary in those decisions concerning other assessment years is not necessary to the present holding.

Issue 3 - Conclusion

* The Court applies its earlier decisions that followed Rajeev Bansal to quash the present impugned order under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 notice and to set aside proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

* The Court, applying the statutory scheme (Section 149 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, read with TOLA), the concession recorded in the Supreme Court decision, and consistent High Court authority, holds that notices and orders issued on or after 1 April 2021 in respect of AY 2015-16 are time-barred and must be quashed.

* The impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 in the present proceedings are set aside and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are annulled.

---