Reassessment quashed: income below Rs.50 lakh threshold under Section 148A; no valid loss escapement for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment proceedings. For AY 2017-18, it held that the notice issued u/s 148A beyond three years was invalid as the alleged escaped income of Rs. 29,55,558/- was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold under Explanation 2(b) to Section 148A, rendering the reopening without jurisdiction. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found no escapement of income since the assessee's return, though belated, reflected a loss of Rs. 52,86,454/- and no valid claim of loss set-off under Section 139(3) or u/s 147 existed. Consequently, the reassessment orders were set aside and other grounds were rendered academic.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether reassessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid where the alleged escaped income represented by shares was below the statutory monetary threshold.

1.2 Whether reassessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 was valid when, on the admitted and recorded facts, there was no "income" that had escaped assessment, but only a capital loss declared belatedly which was ineligible for set-off or carry forward.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of reassessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 where alleged escaped income is below Rs. 50,00,000 and notice under section 148 is issued beyond three years

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal)

2.1 The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 148A and section 149(1)(b) with Explanation 2 to clause (b) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as to the time limit and monetary threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. It noted that for issue of notice beyond three years and up to ten years, the Assessing Officer must possess books of account or other documents or evidence revealing that income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of an "asset" (including shares and securities), "expenditure" or "entries" in books of account, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000 or more for that assessment year. It also referred to judicial precedents interpreting these provisions, including the view that such extended limitation applies only to cases of serious tax evasion above the specified threshold.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 It was an undisputed factual position on record that:

(a) The reassessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was initiated after three years from the end of that assessment year.

(b) The value of the "asset" (shares of Kushal Ltd.) in respect of which income was alleged to have escaped assessment was Rs. 29,55,558, being the quantum of alleged accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt under section 10(38).

(c) The above figure of Rs. 29,55,558, as recorded by the Assessing Officer in the section 148A(d) order and in the notice under section 148, was below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000.

2.3 The assessee had, in the reply to the notice under section 148A(b), specifically objected that the alleged escaped income was only Rs. 29,55,558, less than the statutory limit of Rs. 50,00,000, and therefore notice beyond three years was without jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer rejected this objection and proceeded to reopen solely on the basis that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries in the form of Long Term Capital Gain to evade tax.

2.4 The Tribunal held that in view of the clear statutory mandate of section 149(1)(b) read with Explanation 2 to section 148A(b), reassessment beyond three years is not permissible unless the income which has escaped assessment, represented in the form of an "asset" as defined, is Rs. 50,00,000 or more for that assessment year. Since the Assessing Officer himself quantified the alleged escaped income at Rs. 29,55,558, the pre-condition for invoking extended limitation was not satisfied.

2.5 The Tribunal relied on and followed the reasoning of co-ordinate benches and High Court decisions cited before it, which had held that:

(a) Notice under section 148 issued after three years for an assessment year is barred by limitation where the alleged escaped income represented in the form specified in section 149(1)(b) is below Rs. 50,00,000 for that assessment year.

(b) The scheme of section 149(1) and section 149(1A) requires the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000 to be satisfied in respect of the relevant assessment year, unless specific cumulative conditions laid down in section 149(1A) are met, which were not applicable on the facts of this case.

Conclusions

2.6 The Tribunal concluded that:

(a) The notice issued under section 148A and consequent notice under section 148 for Assessment Year 2017-18, having been issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, were invalid in law because the alleged escaped income of Rs. 29,55,558, represented by shares, was less than Rs. 50,00,000.

(b) The assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under section 147, based on such notice, was therefore bad in law.

(c) Consequently, the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) was quashed.

(d) In view of the reassessment being quashed for lack of jurisdiction, the remaining grounds challenging the additions on merits and related consequential issues were rendered academic and required no separate adjudication.

Issue 2 - Validity of reassessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 where there is no escapement of income but only a capital loss returned belatedly

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal)

2.7 The Tribunal considered the concept of "income which has escaped assessment" under section 147 in conjunction with the provisions of section 139(3) regarding the requirement of filing a return within the time allowed under section 139(1) for valid claim and carry forward of loss under the head "Capital gains". It examined whether, on the facts, there existed any positive "income" that could be said to have escaped assessment.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The factual matrix as recorded by the Tribunal and emerging from the assessee's reply and the return of income was:

(a) For Assessment Year 2018-19, the assessee had undertaken share transactions in the scrip "Kushal Ltd." resulting in a Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 52,86,454.

(b) In the original return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19, filed on 28-04-2022, the assessee declared the above loss. This return was filed belatedly and not within the time prescribed under section 139(1).

(c) The assessee's computation and return reflected that this Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 52,86,454 was carried forward in the return for Assessment Year 2018-19, but in the return for Assessment Year 2019-20 the said loss was not brought forward or set off against any income.

(d) The assessee, in response to the notice under section 148A(b), specifically highlighted that although the loss had been incurred and initially carried forward, it had never been claimed as set off against any income up to Assessment Year 2019-20 and therefore there was no loss to the Revenue or suppression of income.

2.9 The Tribunal noted that:

(a) Since the return for Assessment Year 2018-19, declaring the loss of Rs. 52,86,454, was filed belatedly, the loss was not eligible to be carried forward or set off in terms of section 139(3).

(b) Hence, even on a plain reading of the statute, the assessee could not legally claim the benefit of this loss in any subsequent year.

(c) Correspondingly, there was no "income" which could be said to have escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 on this account, because the position, even after reassessment, would not result in any additional tax liability - the loss not being admissible in any event due to late filing.

2.10 On this basis, the Tribunal held that the premise adopted by the Assessing Officer, namely, that there was escapement of income of Rs. 11,72,671 on account of alleged bogus loss from penny stock transactions, was incorrect on the admitted and recorded facts. There was neither a positive income suppressed nor any revenue impact, since:

(a) The alleged loss had not been and could not be legally set off or carried forward.

(b) Therefore, there was no escapement of "income chargeable to tax" within the meaning of section 147.

Conclusions

2.11 The Tribunal concluded that:

(a) The reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19 were unsustainable in law, as the basic condition of "income which has escaped assessment" under section 147 was not satisfied.

(b) The allegation of escapement of income was unfounded, because the only relevant figure was a capital loss declared in a belated return, which was ineligible for set-off or carry forward and had in fact not been claimed against any income.

(c) Consequently, the notice under section 148A(b), the reassessment initiated thereon, and the reassessment order were liable to be, and were, set aside.

(d) With the reassessment itself being quashed, all remaining grounds on merits of additions and other consequential issues (including disallowance of loss, treatment of investments/loans as unexplained, application of section 115BBE, and initiation of penalties) became academic and did not require separate adjudication.

---