2025 (2) TMI 865 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Period of limitation - addition u/s. 69C - HELD THAT - As the A.O in the present case had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 i.e. much subsequent to lapse of the period of limitation as was available with him upto 13.06.2022 therefore as stated by the Ld. AR (subject to correction of the date by the Ld. AR as 16.06.2022) and rightly so the same is found to be barred by limitation. Accordingly the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B in absence of a valid notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and is quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 25.07.2022, was barred by limitation and thus invalid.
• Whether the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.04.2023, was sustainable in the absence of a valid notice under Section 148.
• The validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) for framing the impugned assessment.
• The appropriate treatment of alleged bogus purchases and the corresponding income additions under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Validity and Timeliness of Notice under Section 148

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 2021, substituted the entire scheme of reassessment under Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, effective from April 1, 2021. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance Act, 2020 (TOLA) extended the time limits for certain actions, including reassessment notices.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the procedural requirements and timelines for issuing reassessment notices under the new regime.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The notice under Section 148 was issued on 25.07.2022, beyond the permissible timeframe, which should have been issued by 13.06.2022.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the new provisions and Supreme Court rulings to determine that the notice was time-barred and invalid.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the A.O had validly assumed jurisdiction, but the Court found the notice was issued beyond the allowed period.
• Conclusions: The notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to being time-barred, rendering the reassessment order unsustainable.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The jurisdiction of the A.O is contingent upon the issuance of a valid notice under Section 148, as per the amended provisions and judicial precedents.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that without a valid notice, the A.O could not assume jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of a valid notice under Section 148 due to the time-bar issue was central to the jurisdictional challenge.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory requirements and precedents to conclude that the A.O lacked jurisdiction.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's defense of jurisdiction was rejected based on the invalidity of the notice.
• Conclusions: The A.O's jurisdiction was invalidated due to the lack of a valid Section 148 notice.

3. Treatment of Alleged Bogus Purchases

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act's provisions on bogus purchases and the corresponding income additions under Section 69C were considered, alongside relevant case law.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not delve into the merits of the bogus purchases due to the jurisdictional issue.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The A.O had initially disallowed the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court refrained from addressing this issue due to the quashing of the reassessment order.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court left the arguments on bogus purchases open, given the jurisdictional finding.
• Conclusions: The issue of bogus purchases was not adjudicated due to the jurisdictional defect.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "As the A.O in the present case had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 i.e. much subsequent to lapse of the period of limitation as was available with him upto 13.06.2022, therefore, as stated by the Ld. AR (subject to correction of the date by the Ld. AR as 16.06.2022), and rightly so, the same is found to be barred by limitation."
• Core Principles Established: The issuance of a valid and timely notice under Section 148 is a prerequisite for the A.O to assume jurisdiction for reassessment. The procedural requirements and timelines under the amended provisions must be strictly adhered to.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The reassessment order was quashed due to the invalidity of the notice under Section 148. The issue of bogus purchases was left open due to the jurisdictional defect.