9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 658 - HC - Income TaxReassessment proceedings - validity of the sanction which was accorded to the reassessment action by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT - HELD THAT - Undisputedly we are in this writ petition concerned with Assessment Year AY 2016-17 and in respect of which the notice u/s 148 of the Act ultimately came to be issued on 29 July 2022. It is thus apparent that the action had come to be initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant AY. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner contends that the sanction accorded by the PCIT would not sustain. In cases where reassessment is sought to be commenced after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant AY undisputedly it would be the Principal Chief Commissioner who would be liable to be recognised as being the competent authority. Viewed in that light it is apparent that the reassessment action would not sustain. We are unable to sustain the reassessment action on this short score alone.Accordingly the writ petition is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this judgment is the validity of the sanction accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) for reassessment actions initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The core legal question revolves around whether the PCIT was the appropriate authority to grant such sanction, given the statutory requirements outlined in Section 151 of the Act. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifies the authorities competent to grant sanction for reassessment actions under Sections 148 and 148A. For reassessment actions initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, the competent authority is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or in their absence, the Chief Commissioner or Director General. The Court referenced its previous decision in Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors and the principles enunciated in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO, which addressed similar issues regarding the timing and authority for reassessment notices. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court noted that the reassessment action in question was initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17), which necessitated approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority, not the PCIT. The Court emphasized that the statutory framework under Section 151 clearly delineates the distribution of powers based on the timing of the reassessment initiation, which was not adhered to in this case. Key Evidence and Findings The Court found that the notice under Section 148 was issued on July 29, 2022, well beyond the three-year threshold from the end of the relevant assessment year, thereby requiring sanction from the higher authority as per the statutory mandate. The sanction was, however, accorded by the PCIT, which the Court deemed inappropriate given the statutory requirements. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the provisions of Section 151 to the facts, concluding that the sanction for the reassessment action was invalid due to being granted by an unauthorized authority. The statutory requirement for approval by the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority was not met, rendering the reassessment action unsustainable. Treatment of Competing Arguments The respondents argued that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act extended the timelines for reassessment actions, which should allow the PCIT's sanction to stand. However, the Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that while the Act extended timelines, it did not alter the statutory distribution of powers under Section 151. The Court emphasized that the Act was remedial, aimed at extending timelines due to the pandemic, but did not confer new jurisdictional authority. Conclusions The Court concluded that the reassessment action could not be sustained due to the improper sanction by the PCIT, which was not the competent authority as per Section 151 for actions initiated beyond the three-year period. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Court stated, "The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act merely extended the period within which action could have been initiated and which would have otherwise and ordinarily been governed and regulated by sections 148 and 149 of the Act. If the contention of the respondents were to be accepted it would amount to us virtually ignoring the date when reassessment is proposed to be initiated and the same being indelibly tied to the end of the relevant assessment year." Core Principles Established The judgment reinforced the principle that statutory requirements regarding the competent authority for granting sanction for reassessment actions must be strictly adhered to, regardless of any extensions provided by remedial legislation like the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148, both dated July 29, 2022. However, it clarified that the order was without prejudice to the respondent's right to initiate other proceedings permissible under the law.
|
