https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767889 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767889 Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - barred by the limitation as notice u/s 148 was not issued within the prescribed time - HELD THAT:- Though the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 but the same was dispatched on 01.04.2021 as is apparent from print out of the Email received by the assessee from the department. A perusal of the said email showed that the DCIT, Kolkata sent the said notice on 1st April, 2021 at 3.28 AM, which should have been issued on or before 31st March, 2021. Therefore, the notice is barred by limitation. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Marudhar Vintrade Private Limited [ 2022 (7) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act which signed on 31.3.2021 but communicated on 1.4.2021 at 3.00 a.m.is and all subsequent proceedings are not sustainable and are quashed. However, there was no bar in issuing fresh notice in accordance with law. Scope of extended period as per TOLA - So far as the second peal is concerned for A.Y. 2015-16, is barred by limitation, in our opinion the extended period for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is not available and therefore, the proceedings are barred by limitation even on this count the proceedings as well as consequential assessment has to be quashed. The case of the assessee find force from the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal [ 2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] wherein it has been held that the reopening for A.Y. 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and form 01.04.2021 and therefore the assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Notice issued beyond period of four years - Thirdly, in this case the assessment has been made u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2017 and apparently, the case was reopened after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year which can only be made subject to the satisfaction of the conditions as provided in proviso to Section 147 of the Act, which shows that the reopening of assessment, where the assessment is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, can only be made if the escapement of income is attributed to the failure of the assessee to truly and materially disclose any information during the assessment proceedings. However, in this case, there is no such failure is reported by AO in the reasons recorded and accordingly, the reopening has been made in violation of first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of CEAT Ltd. [ 2023 (1) TMI 73 - SC ORDER] wherein held that the reopening u/s 147 of the Act beyond four years from end of the relevant assessment year could be made subject to the satisfaction of the conditions as provided in first proviso to Section 147 of the Act and not otherwise. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530