The assessment order was invalid as it was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, necessitating adherence to statutory timelines.

JUDGMENT :

(per G. S. Kulkarni, J.):

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 14 October 2021 passed by the Assessing Officer whereby the petitioner’s objections against the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the “IT Act”) has been rejected and the consequent assessment order dated 30 September 2022 passed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 143(3) read with Sections 147, 260 and 144B of the IT Act. Assessment Year relevant to the impugned orders is A.Y. 2012-13.

3. The necessary facts as the petition would set out, need to be noted:-

The petitioner is a limited liability partnership firm, which was initially incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 27 November 1995 and thereafter converted into a limited liability partnership (LLP) on 30 March 2011. It is regularly filing its income tax returns since its incorporation.

4. For the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner filed its return of income on 29 September 2012. On 03 October 2013, an intimation was issued to the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. After a long period of time that is on 12 November 2018, a notice under Section 133(6) was issued by the DDIT (I & CI), Unit-2(2) calling for details like share of the petitioner in the sale proceeds, from the sale of land, computation of capital gains, etc. The petitioner, by its letter dated 27 November 2018, replied to the said notice in which it furnished all the details which were called for. On 07 December 2018, the petitioner filed further details as also requested that a personal hearing be granted to it by the DDIT. Again notices under Section 133(6) were issued to the petitioner by the Income Tax Officer (I & CI), Unit-2(1) on 20 November 2018 and 19 December 2018 to which replies were filed by the petitioner on 14 December 2018 and 28 December 2018, respectively. On 17 January 2019, a further notice was issued to the petitioner by the said Income Tax Officer under Section 133(6).

5. It is on the aforesaid backdrop, on 29 March 2019, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the IT Act, informing the petitioner that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year in question (2012-13) had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, and for such reason, it was proposed to assess/re-assess the income/loss for the said assessment year. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to deliver within 30 days from the receipt of such notice, a return in the prescribed form, for the said assessment year. The assessing officer by a communication dated 23 April 2019 furnished reasons to the petitioner for reopening of the case inter alia recording that the income chargeable to tax of Rs. 4,13,05,930/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act which was in relation to transaction of sale of property undertaken by Shri. Daayas Lovaji Frezar and Shri. Sanjay B. Jadhav on 16 August 2011, to the tune of Rs. 9,00,00,000/-.

6. The petitioner objected to the reasons by its letter dated 06 May 2019 dealing the same on merits, thereby contending that the reasons to believe were vague; they had no nexus to the conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer, hence, they were bad in law. The assessing officer considered such objections, and by an order dated 25 November 2019 rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. Thereafter an assessment order dated 19 May 2021 was passed by the Assessing Officer.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3368 of 2019 challenging the notice issued under Section 148 and the said order dated 25 November 2019 rejecting/disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner. On such writ petition, an ad-interim order came to be passed by the