TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of law, they are being decided conjointly. However, the facts of BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd., being W.P.(C) 19738/2025, are being taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 29.10.2017, declaring an income of Rs.13,63,270/-. The respondent-Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 to the petitioner for the purpose of reassessment, invoking the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. The aforesaid notice dated 21.03.2024 required the petitioner to file a reply on or before 28.03.2024, on which date, the petitioner requested the AO to grant some time and the matter came to be adjourned to 08.04.2024. 4. On 08.04.2024, the petitioner again sought a week's time to file a reply and the matter got deferred to 13.04.2024, on which date, the petitioner filed a response to the notice dated 21.03.2024. On 15.04.2024, the AO rejected petitioner's objection by way of an order under section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 and proceeded to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act of 1961. 5. The said notice dated 15.04.2024 has been assailed on the ground of jurisdiction, as according to the petitioner, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer reported in (2024) 165 taxman.com 675 and also submitted that there are a number of judgments of different High Courts supporting the stand of the petitioner. 11. So far as precedent on the issue in hand is concerned, Mr. Bhatia submitted that firstly, the judgment of this Court in the case of Manju Somani (supra) does not deal with the facts peculiar to this case, more particularly effect of fifth proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act of 1961. He relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2023) 156 taxman.com 148. 12. Learned counsel for respondent submitted through written submission that Section 149(1) must be read as a whole. The First Proviso cannot be interpreted in isolation from the Fifth and Sixth Provisos. All provisos form part of one composite limitation framework and must be harmoniously construed. In the present case, notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 21.03.2024, before the bar contemplated under the First Proviso applied. The date of issuance of notice is therefore crucial. The Petitioner's contention that only the First Proviso governs the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this section and the notice issued under section 148 in such case shall be deemed to have been issued on the 31st day of March of such financial year: Provided also that where the information as referred to in Explanation 1 to section 148 emanates from a statement recorded or documents impounded under section 131 or section 133A, as the case may be, on or before the 31st day of March of a financial year, in consequence of,- (a) a search under section 132 which is initiated; or (b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed; or (c) a requisition made under section 132A, after the 15th day of March of such financial year, a period of fifteen days shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation as per this section and the notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A in such case shall be deemed to have been issued on the 31st day of March of such financial year: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner prayed for another adjournment and the proceedings were deferred to 13.04.2024. The reply came to be filed on 13.04.2024, whereafter, on 15.04.2024, the AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) and simultaneously issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. 17. The scheme of Section 148A and the principles of natural justice enjoins upon the AO to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to pass an order under Section 148(d) before issuance of notice under Section 148. 18. The proceedings under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 in the present case were undeniably initiated well within limitation on 21.03.2024. The delay occurred because the petitioner sought adjournments. The AO, acting bonafidely and in compliance with principles of natural justice, granted reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file its reply. But equity has no role to play, when it comes to the issue of bar of limitation, hence, the AO cannot invoke any sympathy for being just. 19. Nevertheless, this Court finds that the notice dated 15.04.2024 is not barred by limitation in face of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been raised only after the notice dated 15.04.2024 was issued, that too in the present writ proceedings. 26. If petitioner's contention is accepted, then in each case when initial notice under Section 148A has been issued wherein limitation, the AO apprehending that the limitation period might end, would refuse to grant sufficient time to file reply and pass order under Section 148A(C) in a haste. This would defeat the purpose of Section 148A, which is meant to give assessee a fair opportunity to defend its case. 27. The petitioner's reliance on the decision in Manju Somani (supra) of this Court is misplaced. In that case, the notice was issued beyond the limitation period without any delay being caused by the assessee and the statutory exclusion was neither applicable nor was the same pleaded by the respondents. The facts of the present case are quite different. The proceedings under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 were initiated within time, and the delay occurred only because the petitioner's own requests for adjournments. Therefore, the benefit of exclusion under the proviso to Section 149(1) has to be given in accordance with law. The judgment in Manju Somani (supra) d....