INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income “Nil”. The return was duly processed and an order was passed u/s 143(3) assessing total income of Rs. 16,010/- with income tax liabilities of Rs. 4,950/- The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in response to the same, the return of income u/s 148 has been filed declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessee has been provided with reason recorded for reopening of the case u/s 148(2) of the Act as the information was received that the assessee has received Rs. 8,48,70,200/- from other non-individual entities. The AO after going over the submission made by the assessee made an addition of Rs. 8,48,70,200/- on account of unexplained credit and raised a demand amounting to Rs. 6,11,24,078/-.

The Ld. Sr. DR challenges the very impugned order thereby taking following grounds in the appeal:

Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,48,70,200/- on account of unexplained investment.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deciding the case in favour of the assessee by misinterpreting the relevant terms of the decisions Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UOI vs. Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Shivrashi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Ashish Agarwalla (2022 SCC Online SC 543) and UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (dated 03.10.2024) [Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024].

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68, which were based on the probability of surrounding circumstances wherein the transactions were blatantly suspicious and the rules of suspicious transactions apply, as has been held in the case of Hersh W. Chadha v. Deputy Director of Income-tax, Circle- 1(1), International Taxation[ 2011] 9 taxmann.com 1 (Delhi)/[2011] 43 SOT 544 (Delhi)/[2011] 135 TTJ 513 (Delhi).

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not remanding the matter back to the AO for fresh verification. Thus, the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules are violated.

That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Contrary to that the Ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that impugned order is based on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment passed in the Rajeev Bansal case (supra).

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the impugned order and find that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022 after four years from the end of the assessment year. The AR submits that the notice u/s 148 was issued on borrowed satisfaction. First notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021 and thereafter intimation letter for notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.07.2022 for AY 2013-14. We have gone through the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the relevant portion of the order is essential to reproduce herein below:

The Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal has exhaustively examined the impact of its judgment in Ashish Agarwal viewed in the context of the Third Proviso to Section 149(1) as well as the period liable to be excluded in light of Section 3 of TOLA. The Supreme Court has ultimately held that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would clearly be entitled to be excluded for the purposes of answering the question of limitation for commencement of reassessment action. This it held in light of the statutory command of Section 3(1) of TOLA.

In Rajeev Bansal, it was further declared that the period between the date of issuance of the impugned reassessment notices (if falling between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021) up to the date of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal, and that being 04 May 2022, would also be liable to be excluded in light of the Third Proviso to Section 149(1).

The third period which was factored in was the date when material in support of the formation of opinion of income having escaped assessment would have been provided to the assessee and the time for furnishing of objections, and which too as the Supreme Court holds in Rajeev Bansal is liable to be excluded.

It is the aforenoted three periods which are thus liable to be added to the date when the notice for reassessment was issued in order to answer the question as to whether the reassessment notices could be said to be barred by the timelines as prescribed by Section 149 of the Act.

The surviving period with which Question ‘A’ is concerned, was lucidly explained by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, and we thus deem it apposite to extract the following passages from that decision:- “110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to the assessees in terms of the directions issued by this court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assessees to reply to the show-cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to section 149.

The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assessees to the show-causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the Assessing Officer had to perform the following responsibilities : (i) consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the Assessing Officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was available to the Assessing Officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime.

Let us take the instance of a notice issued on May 1, 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show-cause notices will also come into effect from May 1, 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the Assessing Officer will have sixty-one days (days between May 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021) to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on June 18, 2022, the Assessing Officer will have sixty-one days from June 18, 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on August 18, 2022.

In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] , this court allowed the assessees to avail of all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Shivrashi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. To assume relevant assessment years, an Assessing Officer has to : (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred.”

The Division Bench of the Court in Ram Balram was called upon to deal with a live case and where it was directly called upon to answer whether the reassessment notice could be said to be sustainable when tested on the principles enunciated in Rajeev Bansal. The Division Bench of the Court in Ram Balram upon application of the salient principles propounded by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal came to hold as follows:- “65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 under the statutory framework, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 were extended till 30.06.20218 . Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the date of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal is required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act.

Additionally, the period from the date of decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had issued the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal .

In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 – the period of two weeks –is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date.

As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twentynine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022.

Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation.”

The Court in Ram Balram was concerned with a notice for reassessment which had come to be issued on 01 June 2021 and thus falling within the broad Section 3(1) TOLA period of 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021. The Court thus firstly proceeded to exclude the 29 days period falling between 01 June 2021 to 30 June 2021 21. It proceeded further to then factor in the period commencing from 01 June 2021 upto 04 May 2022 with the latter being the date when the judgment in Ashish Agarwal came to be pronounced, and which period too was liable to be excluded in light of what the Supreme Court had held in Rajeev Bansal. In Ram Balram, following the decision in Ashish Agarwal, the AO is stated to have issued a notice under Section 148A(b) on 30 May 2022. Thus, the Division Bench in Ram Balram correctly proceeded to recognize the period between 04 May 2022 to 30 May 2022 as being liable to be removed from consideration for purposes of computation of Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Shivrashi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. limitation.

It then proceeded further to factor in the period of two weeks within which the assessee was called upon to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) and which period is statutory liable to be excluded by virtue of the Third Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act.

The commencement point computed in accordance with the aforesaid was thus identified to be 13 June 2022, when the assessee had ultimately furnished a reply to the notice under Section 148A(b). The Court ultimately found that the period of limitation for issuance of a notice for reassessment would have expired on 12 July 2022 and consequently the reassessment notice dated 30 July 2022 being liable to be quashed and set aside.

A similar factual position emerges from the disclosures which appear in W.P.(C) 6849/2023 and where it was fairly conceded that the reassessment notice would be liable to be recognized as being within the period of limitation when tested on the broad principles identified above. This emerges from the following summary chart which was placed for our consideration by Ms. Jha, learned senior counsel who represented that writ petitioner:

The challenge to the reassessment notice on this score and insofar as W.P.(C) 6849/2023 is concerned, would thus necessarily fail. We additionally note that although we had required all the writ petitioners to submit disclosures in the aforesaid format, not all have been able to comply with the same. It is this facet which has weighed upon us to consider disposing of these writ petitions in terms indicated hereinafter.

Having identified the broad principles which would now govern the question of surviving time, we are of the considered opinion that rather than this Court undertaking the gargantuan exercise of examining individual facts, it would appear to be expedient to frame directions requiring the AOs to frame an order with respect to the individual reassessment notices in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and of this Court in Ram Balram, T.K.S Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta.” 6.3 It is also relevant to mention here that the division bench decision in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has examined the issue of overarching period of limitation under section 149 of the IT Act and held that notice u/s 148 has to be issued within the time period prescribed u/s 149 and the procedure that is required to be completed for the issuance of notice under section 148 is required to be completed prior to the expiry of the time limit as prescribed u/s 149(1) of the Act. Relevant extracts of the order are reproduced below: 47. The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop. Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be completed prior to the expiry of the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. Such time limit cannot be breached on account of the AO not completing the procedure required for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. There is no ambiguity in this regard given the construct of Section 149(1) of the Act, which is not in the nature of enabling provision but a provision that proscribes an action. ………………………………………. 53. As is apparent from the plain language of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, it extends the period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act so as to provide the AO a minimum of seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. If the time available to the AO to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days after excluding the period as provided under the third proviso, then the period of three years or ten years as prescribed is required to be extended by such period so as to make available to the AO at least seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Illustratively, if the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is issued to an assessee, on the last date on which issuance of such a notice under Section 148 of the Act is permissible, that is, on the last day of expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Shivrashi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. assessment year or ten years from the end of the assessment year as the case may be, the time made available to the assessee to respond to a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act (being a minimum of seven days but not exceeding thirty days as provided in the notice plus such further time as extended pursuant to an application), is required to be excluded for the calculation of the period of three years or ten years as the case may be. And, an additional period of seven days is made available for the AO to pass an order. Thus, the period of limitation in such case would be three years (after excluding the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act) and seven days, or a period of ten years (after excluding the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act) and seven days as the case may be.

It is obvious, that in such a case, the AO would not have a time for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as stipulated under the said Clause, that is, one month from the end of the month in which the assessee furnishes a reply to the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. As noted above, the AO is required to complete the entire procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act within the period as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Plainly, if the AO is unable to complete such procedure within the period of limitation, the AO would cease to have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice. 6.4 The relevant screenshots, establishing the material dates are reproduced below: