Facts of the
Case
The petitioner, Bhagwan Sahai Sharma, filed a writ
petition challenging the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961, the order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section
148A(d), and the notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), all
relating to Assessment Year 2015–16.
The petitioner had filed his return of income for
AY 2015–16 on 26.08.2015 declaring total income of ₹60,64,800. An initial
notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.06.2021 under the old reassessment
regime. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Ashish
Agarwal, the said notice was deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b), and
fresh material was supplied by the Assessing Officer on 02.06.2022.
Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order
under Section 148A(d) and issued the impugned notice under Section 148 on
30.07.2022, which was challenged as being barred by limitation.
Issues
Involved
Whether the reassessment notice dated 30.07.2022
issued for Assessment Year 2015–16 was barred by limitation under Section 149
of the Income-tax Act, and whether the provisions of the Taxation and Other
Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 could be
applied to extend the period of limitation.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner contended that the reassessment
notice was issued beyond the permissible limitation period prescribed under
Section 149. It was argued that in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in
Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Revenue had expressly conceded that TOLA
was not applicable to Assessment Year 2015–16.
Accordingly, any notice issued on or after
01.04.2021 for AY 2015–16 was required to be dropped. The petitioner relied on
subsequent Delhi High Court decisions, including Ibibo Group Private Limited,
where similar notices were quashed as time-barred.
Respondents’
Arguments
The Revenue sought to sustain the impugned notice
by placing reliance on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union of
India vs. Ashish Agarwal. It was contended that the reassessment proceedings
were validly continued in compliance with the said directions.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Delhi High Court examined the statutory scheme
and the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was categorically recorded that TOLA was not
applicable for Assessment Year 2015–16 and that all notices issued on or after
01.04.2021 for that year were liable to be dropped.
The Court noted that the impugned notice under
Section 148 was issued on 30.07.2022, well beyond the limitation period
prescribed under Section 149(1). The Court further observed that similar
notices had already been set aside by the Delhi High Court and that the Supreme
Court had dismissed Special Leave Petitions in analogous cases by recording the
Revenue’s concession in Rajeev Bansal.
In view of the settled legal position, the Court
held that the impugned notice and all proceedings emanating therefrom were
barred by limitation and unsustainable in law.
Important
Clarification
The Court clarified that for Assessment Year
2015–16, the benefit of TOLA is unavailable, as expressly conceded by the
Revenue before the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, reassessment
notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for that assessment year are liable to be
quashed as time-barred, notwithstanding the procedural framework evolved in
Ashish Agarwal.
Final
Outcome
The writ petition was allowed. The Delhi High Court
set aside the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148, the order dated
30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and all proceedings emanating
therefrom for Assessment Year 2015–16, holding the reassessment proceedings to
be barred by limitation.
Link to download order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769686023_BHAGWANSAHAISHARMAVsDEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCIRCLE131DELHIANR..pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment