Notice under s.142(1) issued after 31.12.2017 deadline held void ab initio; therefore assessment proceedings quashed

ITAT held that service of notice under s.142(1) must have been completed by 31.12.2017; since the notice in this matter was issued on 09.03.2018, it was beyond the prescribed date and contrary to departmental instruction. Consequently the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings were void ab initio, and the assessment proceedings were quashed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act after the date prescribed in the Departmental Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for demonetisation-related substantial cash deposits renders the subsequent assessment proceedings void ab initio.

2. Whether, if the assessment proceedings are quashed on the ground of invalid notice, the factual and legal adjudication on additions under section 69A and invocation of section 115BBE/penalty provisions must be decided or become academic.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of section 142(1) notice issued after SOP deadline

Legal framework: The statutory scheme permits issuance of notice under section 142(1) to initiate inquiry before assessment. The Department issued an internal Instruction/SOP governing service of notices in cases of substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period, expressly directing that the process of service of notice under section 142(1) "should be completed by 31st December, 2017."

Precedent Treatment: The decision does not rely on or apply any prior judicial precedent to displace or interpret the SOP; no case law was followed, distinguished or overruled on this point in the record.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the Departmental SOP as binding on Revenue authorities for the specified class of cases. The Tribunal found that the notice in the present matter was issued on 09.03.2018, i.e., after the SOP deadline, thereby contravening the Instruction. On that basis the Tribunal concluded the issuance was beyond the prescribed procedure and time-limit envisaged by the SOP and, because the SOP was binding, the entire consequential assessment process was vitiated.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Tribunal's holding that non-compliance with a binding Departmental SOP (which prescribes completion of service by a fixed date) in the specific context of demonetisation-related notices under section 142(1) renders the notice and consequent assessment proceedings void ab initio. Obiter - No broader pronouncement was made on the general legal status of all internal instructions vis-à-vis statutory powers beyond the present factual matrix.

Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings as void ab initio because the section 142(1) notice was issued after the date prescribed in the binding SOP for such notices.

Issue 2 - Consequence for merits of additions under section 69A and invocation of section 115BBE/penalty

Legal framework: Additions under section 69A and tax consequences under section 115BBE and penalty under section 271F arise only if valid assessment proceedings are lawfully carried out and the statutory notice/inquiry prerequisites are satisfied.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal did not decide merits by reference to precedents; it expressly refrained from adjudicating the substantive additions or penalty once the legal ground of notice invalidity succeeded.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having found the foundational notice invalid and the assessment void, the Tribunal held that any discussion on substantive additions under section 69A or on applicability of section 115BBE/penalty would be academic. The Tribunal therefore did not entertain or decide the factual and substantive contentions (e.g., sale proceeds of agricultural land as source) raised by the assessee or the Revenue's request for remand/decision on merits.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the initiating statutory notice is void ab initio for non-compliance with a binding SOP applicable to the class of cases, subsequent substantive adjudication becomes academic and will not be decided. Obiter - The Tribunal did not decide whether remand would ever be appropriate in different factual permutations (e.g., where notice infirmity is curable or where SOP non-compliance is immaterial).

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee by quashing the assessment; substantive issues relating to additions under section 69A and application of section 115BBE/penalty were left undecided as academic.

Ancillary procedural point - Raising the SOP-compliance ground before the Tribunal

Legal framework: Parties may raise grounds of challenge before the Tribunal even if not raised before lower authorities, subject to principles of admissibility and fairness.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Revenue contended the point of late notice was not agitated earlier and therefore should not be entertained. The Tribunal nonetheless entertained and decided the ground because it raised a fundamental jurisdictional defect going to the validity of the entire assessment machinery in the specific category of demonetisation-related notices governed by the SOP.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A jurisdictional defect in issuance of statutory notice, demonstrated by proven non-compliance with a binding departmental SOP applicable to the case, may be entertained at the Tribunal stage even if not formally raised below, where it renders proceedings void. Obiter - The decision does not set out a general rule on when Tribunal should or should not admit fresh grounds in all cases.

Conclusion: The Tribunal accepted and adjudicated the SOP-compliance challenge addressing the jurisdictional validity of the notice and assessment despite the Revenue's objection.

Disposition

Because the notice under section 142(1) was issued after the date prescribed in the binding SOP applicable to demonetisation-related substantial cash deposits, the assessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio; consequential substantive additions and penalty proceedings were not adjudicated and were treated as academic.

---