9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] as per the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the outer time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 was 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and thus, for AY 2013-14, the time limit expired on 31st March 2020. Under the amended provision, a notice under Section 148 can be issued within a period of 3 years or 10 years, the latter available only after fulfilling certain stipulated additional conditions, including the limitation provided for by the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The first proviso to Section 149(1) stipulates that no notice under Section 148 can be issued at any time in a case for any assessment year, if a notice under Section 148 could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the unamended Section 149(1)(b), i.e., as it stood prior to the Finance Act, 2021. Applicability of Section 149 to be seen qua the notice under Section 148 and not with respect to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) or the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. In the present case, as for AY 2013-14, the 6 years period expired on 31st March 2021, extended under Section 3(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation in view of non-applicability of Notification No. 20/2021, the superstructure sitting thereon, viz., the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to judgment in Ashish Agarwal will also be regarded as beyond time limit. Therefore, on this ground as well, the impugned reopening notice dated 28th July 2022 issued for AY 2013- 14 in petitioner's case is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, it is well settled that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued in order to reopen the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was already barred under the pre-amended Act on the date when the new legislation came into force. In CIT V/s. Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF) the Hon'ble Apex Court held: That raises the question whether that proviso could be applied without reference to any period of limitation. It is a well-settled principle that no action can be commenced has expired. It is unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this position. Does the fact that the second proviso says that there is no period of limitation make a difference? xxxxxxxxxx. XXXXXXXXXX In J .P. Jani, Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 and it is extended till 30 June 2021, respondent, in other words, argues that the Notification No. 20 of 2021 seeks to extend the time limit inter alia for issuing notice under Section 148 which was expiring on 31 March 2021 not only under the provisions of the Act, but would also include the time extension in the Act by virtue of TOLA. To put in another way, the time limit expiring on 31 March 2021 specified in Notification No. 20 of 2021, according to respondents, would have to be read to include limitation under the Act read with TOLA. As noted earlier, this contention is flawed inasmuch as it expands the scope of the Notification and violates its plain language, viz., the time limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under the Income Tax Act falls for completion. The limitation under the Act (erstwhile Section 149) for reopening the assessment for the AY 2013-14 expired on 31 March 2020. Hence, Notification No. 20 of 2021 did not apply to the facts of the present case. Notification No. 38 of 2021 dated 27th April 2021 categorically uses the expression the time limit for completion of such action expires on the 30th day of April 2021 due to its extension by the said noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberty to assessees to raise all defences available to the assessee including the defences under Section 149 of the Act. The Apex Court observed that its order will strike a balance between the rights of the Revenue as well as the respective assessees. Moreover, in Siemens Financial (Supra), this Court has already considered a similar contention of the Revenue and held that equity has no place in taxation or while interpreting taxing statute such intendment would have any place and that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly. The Revenue also fails to appreciate that no particular case was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Ashish Agarwal (Supra). It is apposite to cite here an extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd V/s. Income Tax Officer, which reads as under: ..It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well-versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st March 2021, then it is obvious that the provisions of the new reassessment law introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 cannot apply as they came into force w.e.f. 1st April 2021 and onwards. Ashish Agarwal (Supra) in no uncertain words stated that the new provisions have to apply to all such notices. Therefore, the argument urged is completely contrary to law as well as the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; (g) As regards reliance on Touchstone Holdings (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the initial notice dated 29th June, 2021 issued under Section 148 is within limitation. No findings on the validity or otherwise of the notice issued after May 2022 pursuant to the judgment in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) is given. Moreover, in that case, petitioner did not argue that for AY 2013-14 the time limit would have expired even under TOLA on 31st March 2021; (h) As regards Salil Gulati (Supra), the Delhi High Court, to reach its conclusion, has merely relied upon its earlier decision in Touchstone Holdings (Supra). It will be relevant to note that following Salil Gulati (Supra), a similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Yogita Mohan V/s. Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
