9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 892 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - time limit for issuing notice under unamended Section 149 - Notice deemed to have been issued under Section 148A - Addition u/s 68 - survey as conducted at the premises of the assessee resulted in impounding of incriminating documents and one of the modus used by the said companies is to provide bogus share capital and bogus share premium to other companies - HELD THAT - Since the time period for issuance of reassessment notice for assessment year 2013-14 stood extended until 30th June, 2021, the first proviso of Section 149 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is not attracted in the facts of this case. Time limit for initiating assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 stood extended till 30th June, 2021. The petitioner does not dispute the said facts, consequently, the reassessment notice dated 29th June, 2021, which has been issued within the extended period of limitation is not time barred. The petitioner s challenge to the paragraph 6.2. (i) of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11th May, 2022 is not maintainable. The contention of the petitioner that assessment for AY 2013-14 became time barred on 31st March, 2020 is incorrect. The time period for assessment stood extended till 30th June, 2021. The initial reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 has been issued to the petitioner within the said extended period of limitation. The Supreme Court has declared that the said reassessment notice be deemed as a notice issued under Section 148A of the Act and permitted Revenue to complete the said proceedings. In this case, the income alleged to have escaped assessment is more than 50 lakhs and therefore, the rigour of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) has been satisfied. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with the pending application is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Order dated 20th July, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Validity of the Notice dated 20th July, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 3. Challenge to the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11th May, 2022. 4. Allegation of time-barred reassessment proceedings. 5. Dispute over the alleged transaction with M/s BDR Builders and Developers Private Ltd. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Order dated 20th July, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961: The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on incorrect information regarding transactions with M/s BDR Builders and Developers Private Ltd. The petitioner argued that there was no transaction of sale or purchase of shares in the assessment year under consideration and that the transactions mentioned were undertaken by the shareholders, not the petitioner. 2. Validity of the Notice dated 20th July, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14: The petitioner argued that as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act, no notice for reassessment could be issued for the assessment year 2013-14 since the time limit expired on 30th March, 2020. The Revenue countered that the initial notice dated 29th June, 2021, and subsequent proceedings were valid as they fell within the extended time limit provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). 3. Challenge to the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11th May, 2022: The petitioner challenged paragraph 6.2.(i) of the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022, arguing that the assessment for AY 2013-14 became time-barred on 31st March, 2020. The court found this contention incorrect, noting that the time period for assessment was extended until 30th June, 2021. 4. Allegation of time-barred reassessment proceedings: The petitioner claimed that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred. The court, however, determined that the initial notice dated 29th June, 2021, was issued within the extended period of limitation, making the proceedings valid. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Ashish Agarwal, which deemed notices issued between 1st April 2021 to 30th June 2021 as issued under Section 148A of the Act. 5. Dispute over the alleged transaction with M/s BDR Builders and Developers Private Ltd: The Revenue argued that the petitioner was part of the BDR Group, which was involved in providing accommodation entries and had received bogus share premium and capital. The court found that the petitioner had not provided evidence to prove that the reassessment proceedings were arbitrary. The court noted that the information shared with the petitioner indicated scrutiny of transactions involving the sale and purchase of shares and that the petitioner had received share premium from companies involved in providing bogus share capital. Conclusion: The court concluded that the disputed facts could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings and that the reassessment notice issued within the extended period was not time-barred. The court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the Assessing Officer should decide the matter on its merits without being influenced by the court's observations except on the issue of limitation.
|
