Search-based reassessment limits control reopening, while continuing liabilities cannot be taxed as cessation under section 41(1).

Reassessment after a search must satisfy the exact statutory time limits and reopening conditions: A.Y. 2013-14 was time-barred beyond the permissible ten-year block, A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 failed because the escaped income was not represented by an asset, and A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21 were invalid because unaccounted sales and estimated expenses did not fit the statutory categories for reopening beyond three years. For A.Y. 2022-23, assessment under section 143(3) without the reassessment route was held without jurisdiction. For A.Y. 2023-24, section 41(1) could not apply where the liability remained recorded and uncrystallised. Only the A.Y. 2021-22 addition survived, limited to 10% gross profit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reassessment for A.Y. 2013-14 was barred by limitation as beyond ten years; (ii) whether the reassessment for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 could be sustained where the escaped income was not represented in the form of an asset; (iii) whether the reassessment for A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21 was valid where the material relied upon consisted of unaccounted sales and estimated expenses, not falling within section 149(1)(b); (iv) whether the addition for A.Y. 2021-22 should be restricted by applying a gross profit rate of 10%; (v) whether the assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 framed under section 143(3) was without jurisdiction in the absence of proceedings under section 148 and compliance with the special reassessment procedure; and (vi) whether the addition for A.Y. 2023-24 could be sustained under section 41(1) on the ground of cessation of liability.

Issue (i): whether the reassessment for A.Y. 2013-14 was barred by limitation as beyond ten years.

Analysis: The search took place on 21.01.2023 and the notice under section 148 for A.Y. 2013-14 was issued on 29.03.2023. On the statutory scheme applied by the Bench, notice could be issued only for the ten assessment years falling within the permissible block counted backwards from the relevant search year. A.Y. 2013-14 fell outside that period. The reassessment was therefore held to be time-barred and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment for A.Y. 2013-14 succeeded and the Revenue's appeal on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): whether the reassessment for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 could be sustained where the escaped income was not represented in the form of an asset.

Analysis: For these years, the notices were issued beyond six years from the relevant assessment years. The Bench held that such cases could be reopened only if the escaped income was represented in the form of an asset, as required by the proviso to section 149 read with the reopening framework applicable to older years. The additions were founded on unaccounted sales and estimated expenses. No cash or other asset was found, and the material did not satisfy the statutory condition. The proceedings were therefore treated as without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessments for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 were quashed and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): whether the reassessment for A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21 was valid where the material relied upon consisted of unaccounted sales and estimated expenses, not falling within section 149(1)(b).

Analysis: The notices under section 148 were issued on 28.06.2024, well beyond the three-year period. The Bench held that, for reopening beyond three years, the escaped income had to fall within the specific categories in section 149(1)(b), namely asset, expenditure in relation to a transaction or event, or an entry in the books of account meeting the monetary threshold. The additions in these years were based on unaccounted sales and estimated disallowance of expenses, which did not answer any of those statutory descriptions. The reassessment notices and consequent orders were therefore invalid.

Conclusion: The reassessments for A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21 were quashed and the assessee succeeded.

Issue (iv): whether the addition for A.Y. 2021-22 should be restricted by applying a gross profit rate of 10%.

Analysis: The search material indicated unaccounted purchases as well as unaccounted indirect expenses, but the rate of 16.50% adopted by the first appellate authority was considered excessive in the facts of the trade and the evidence found. The Bench balanced the material and held that a lower gross profit rate would meet the ends of justice. It therefore reduced the rate to 10%.

Conclusion: The addition for A.Y. 2021-22 was sustained only to the extent of applying 10% gross profit, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Issue (v): whether the assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 framed under section 143(3) was without jurisdiction in the absence of proceedings under section 148 and compliance with the special reassessment procedure.

Analysis: Since the search was conducted on 21.01.2023, the Bench held that the permissible course was to proceed under the reassessment machinery and not under the regular assessment provision. The assessment was, however, made under section 143(3) without following the required reassessment route. This was treated as a jurisdictional infirmity.

Conclusion: The assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 was held to be bad in law and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): whether the addition for A.Y. 2023-24 could be sustained under section 41(1) on the ground of cessation of liability.

Analysis: The liability in question remained recorded in the books and audited financial statements, had not been written back, and had not been claimed as a deduction in any earlier year. On these facts, the Bench held that mere continuance of the liability in the accounts negatived any inference of cessation. The first appellate authority was therefore not justified in shifting the addition to section 41(1).

Conclusion: The addition under section 41(1) for A.Y. 2023-24 was deleted and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The reassessments for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2020-21 were invalid in whole or in part on limitation and jurisdictional grounds, the assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 was quashed for want of the proper statutory procedure, and the addition for A.Y. 2023-24 was deleted; only the addition for A.Y. 2021-22 survived to the limited extent of 10% gross profit.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment beyond the prescribed period must satisfy the exact statutory conditions for reopening, including the asset-linked requirement where applicable, and where a liability continues to be acknowledged in the books without write-back, section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely on conjecture of cessation.

---