9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 585 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - jurisdictional requirements of Sections 147 to 151 - whether approval obtained from the appropriate authority? - whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was the Specified Authority for seeking approval for passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 - HELD THAT - In the present case the period of 3 years from the end of the Assessment Year 2017-2018 fell for completion on 31st March 2021. The expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction till 30th June 2021. On perusal of the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Since the aforesaid order was passed after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the Assessment Year 2017- 2018 as per the new regime the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval. We note that even the notice dated 30/07/2022 was issued under Section 148 of the Act (new regime) after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Accordingly we conclude that in the present case the approval has been obtained by authority specified u/s 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime. The non-compliance by the AO with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) of the new regime affects the jurisdiction of the AO to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Accordingly the order dated 30/07/2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act the consequential reassessment proceedings and the order dated 25/05/2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed as bad in law being violative of the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) Section 148 and Section 151(ii) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of the Notice under Section 148 - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issuance of a notice under Section 148 is governed by the provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act. The Finance Act, 2021 introduced a new regime requiring prior approval from specified authorities at various stages of the reassessment process. The Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal was pivotal in clarifying these requirements. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation, emphasizing that the approval from the specified authority is a precondition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that the new regime mandates a higher level of authority for granting sanctions, especially when more than three years have elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the approval for the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, rather than the higher authority required under the new regime. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework established by the Supreme Court to the facts of the case, concluding that the approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, thereby affecting the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, focusing on the statutory requirements and the Supreme Court's guidance. The Tribunal found the Assessee's argument regarding jurisdictional non-compliance persuasive. - Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements for obtaining approval from the appropriate authority. Issue 2: Impact of Non-Compliance on Jurisdiction - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Sections 148A and 151, which mandates obtaining approval from specified authorities as a jurisdictional precondition. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements for obtaining approval affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a reassessment notice. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory framework and the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts, determining that the jurisdictional requirements were not met. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's arguments but found them unpersuasive in light of the clear statutory requirements and the Supreme Court's interpretation. - Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance with the statutory requirements for obtaining approval rendered the reassessment notice and subsequent proceedings invalid. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal quoted the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeev Bansal, emphasizing that "Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice." - Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that compliance with statutory requirements for obtaining approval from specified authorities is crucial for the validity of reassessment proceedings. - Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal quashed the order dated 30/07/2022 under Section 148A(d), the consequential reassessment proceedings, and the order dated 25/05/2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as they were found to be violative of the statutory provisions. The Tribunal allowed the cross-objection raised by the Assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to jurisdictional non-compliance.
|
