2026 (2) TMI 411 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment under section 147/148: issuance within limitation, not delayed service, upheld; petition dismissed.

Under the pre-amendment regime governing reopening of assessment, the jurisdictional requirement is issuance of a notice under section 148 within the ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - period of limitation - scope of new regime - jurisdictional requirement was the issuance of notice under Section 148 within the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The instant case is governed by the pre-amendment regime i.e. prior to 01.04.2021 as the notice under section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued on 31.03.2019. Under the un-amended provisions, the jurisdictional requirement was the issuance of notice under Section 148 within the period of limitation, and not its service within such period and service, even if effected after the expiry of limitation, cannot vitiate the assumption of jurisdiction, so long as the notice stood issued within the prescribed period of limitation. In the facts of the present case, once it is found that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2019, i.e., within the prescribed period of limitation, it was sent to and received by the petitioner on 31.03.2019 itself. Hence, even if it is taken that service was effected thereafter cannot, by itself, render the proceedings a nullify. A similar view has been taken in the judgment rendered in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel, [1987 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was made clear that for the purposes of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, what is material is the issuance of the notice and not its service within the period of limitation. The date of despatch of the notice is the relevant date for determining whether the notice has been validly issued. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, since the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2019, i.e., within the prescribed period of limitation, it cannot be said that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer cannot be faulted merely on the ground that attachment sent therewith contained some other assessee’s notice - WP dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether the notice purportedly issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2019 was validly issued within the period of limitation notwithstanding an inadvertent attachment of a notice belonging to another assessee and absence of an automatic ITBA e-mail trigger.Analysis: Under the pre-amendment regime applicable on 31.03.2019, the jurisdictional requirement for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is the issuance of the notice within the period prescribed by Section 149; the date of despatch (issuance) is the relevant date. The mere attachment of a document pertaining to another assessee or the lack of a real-time automated e-mail alert does not annul the substance of a communication that correctly names the assessee, PAN and assessment year. The defect in attachment is curable and does not equate to a jurisdictional defect vitiating the notice. The decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal is distinguishable because it arose from a time-bound regime change in limitation; by contrast, the present facts fall under the unamended law where issuance within limitation suffices even if service occurs later. Authoritative principle establishes issuance, not service, as determinative for Section 149 purposes.Conclusion: The notice dated 31.03.2019 under Section 148 was validly issued within the period of limitation and the objection based on the inadvertent attachment and the mode of transmission is rejected; the reassessment proceedings may continue (decision adverse to the assessee).