THIRUMOORTHY REVATHI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(4), COIMBATORE

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the show-cause notice issued u/s.148A(d) of the Act, order passed u/s.148A(d) of the Act, notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the case laws relied on. The Ld.AR by relying on ground no.2, contended that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It was submitted that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2022, which is beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year namely 2015-16. The Ld.AR submitted if the legal contention is held in favour of assessee, grounds raised on merits may be left open. Therefore, we shall first adjudicate the legal contention whether the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 01.04.2022 is :- 4 -: barred by limitation. The contention of the Ld.AR as regards the legal issue is concerned is that the time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act i.e. six years from the end of the relevant AY expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the notice issued in assessee's case on 01.04.2022 is time barred and invalid. The ld AR further submitted that the assessee's case is covered under the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Rajiv Bansal, reported in 469 ITR 430 (SC) has clearly held that notice for the year 2015-16 cannot be issued beyond the period of six years.

The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that in assessee's case the AO issued notice under section 148A(b) on 22.03.2022 and after enquiry passed the order under section 148A(d) on 31.03.2022. The ld. DR further argued that as per the 3rd proviso to section 149 of the Act for the purpose of computing the period of limitation the time or the extended time allowed to the assessee as per the showcause notice issued under section 148A(b) or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any Court shall be excluded. The ld. DR also submitted that as per the 4th proviso to section 149(1) if :- 5 -:

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In order to find out whether the notice under section 148 is time barred or not, we need to first examine the relevant provisions of the Act and the legal position as per judicial precedence. Section 149(1) of the Act contain the provisions with regard to the time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Notice has to judged according to the law existing on the date of notice issued. The relevant provisions applicable when the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued reads as under (as on 01.04.2022):- 149 - Time limit for notice. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case may be], as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021

The time limits for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act were amended as above w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Prior to the amendment the relevant provisions of section 149(1) of the Act read as under – 149 - Time limit for notice. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) **** Explanation.—In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.

The time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act was revised with effect from 01.04.2021 and the legislature in order to make the amendment prospective introduced the first proviso to section 149(1). The intent of the first proviso is that the :- 8 -:

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 50. to 52. *** 53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.”

From the perusal of the legislative intent of the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act and interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that Revenue cannot issue notice under section 148 for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22 if six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired on the date of issue of such notice. In the light of the above legal position we will now examine the facts in present case. The year under consideration here is AY 2015-16. For assessment year 2015-16, the time limit as per the old regime, for issue of notice for AY 2015-16 under section 148 of the Act is six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. i.e. 31.03.2022. Accordingly, the notice dated 01.04.2022 issued u/s.148 of the Act in assessee's case is beyond the time limit and not valid.

The argument of the Ld.DR is that the time allowed to the assessee to respond to the notice issued under section 148A(b) i.e., from 22.03.2022 to 29.03.2022 should be excluded as per the third proviso to section 149(1). We are of the considered view, for the purpose applying the exclusion period, the notice should first survive the test of being issued either under section 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b) under the new regime. In the given case the notice under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 does not survive the test by virtue of the first proviso and therefore the question of applying the third proviso for calculating the time limit does not arise. In this regard, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sridhar Lokesh vs. ITO in WP No.16526 of 2022 (judgment dated 28.11.2024) was considering the following prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Respondent and quash the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in PAN:ADDPL2229A dated 04.04.2022 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042464779(1) for the AY 2015~16 along with the impugned notice no.1 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act in PAN:ADDPL2229A dated 23.03.2022 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1041356299(1) for the AY 2015- 16 and the impugned notice No.2 under Section 148 of the Act in PAN:ADDPL2229A dated 04.04.2022 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1042466733(1) for the AY 2015-16.

In disposing off the above prayer, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held as follows:- “2.The issue, as on date is covered by a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. In paras 29 and 30, the Court has examined the issue in the light of the 1st and 3rd proviso to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as in force with effect from 01.04.2021. The 3rd proviso to Section 149 (1) is now the 5th proviso to Section 149 (1) with effect from 01.04.2023.

In light of the aforesaid discussion and relying on the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 01.04.2022 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings based on an invalid notice is quashed and addition made therein is deleted. Since, we have adjudicated the legal ground, the grounds raised on merits is not adjudicated and is left open. It is ordered accordingly.