HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal, JJ.
Jalaj Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2488 of 2022
Decided On : 11-02-2022
Income Tax - Reassessment Notice - Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148a, Section 149 - The court discussed the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021, and highlighted the major changes in the new scheme of reassessment. It emphasized that the new provisions would apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021 and invalidated the notices issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148a of the act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice of reassessment for the assessment year 2016-17, arguing that the assessing officer applied old provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 148a inserted with effect from 01.04.2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned notice, emphasizing that the new provisions of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021 and invalidated the notices issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148a of the act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reassessment notices were valid under the new provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and whether the explanations provided by the CBDT in the notifications were within the confines of the powers vested in the Government of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the new provisions of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021 and invalidated the notices issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148a of the act. It also declared the explanations provided by the CBDT in the notifications as unconstitutional and invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notice challenged in the petition and disposed of the petition accordingly.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has challenged a notice of reassessment dated 22.06.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the assessing officer has applied the old provisions of the Income Tax act, 1961 for issuing notice and the procedure prescribed under Section 148a of the act which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2021 has not been followed.
2. Under similar circumstances in a judgment dated 27.01.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022-Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr. and other connected matters, we had quashed the reassessment notices making following observations:-
"37. In this context we have perused the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance act, 2021. We have noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of reassessment has made under these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts is no longer relevant. Elaborate provisions are made under Section 148a of the act enabling the assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the assessee calling upon why notice under Section 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering the material available on record including response of the assessee if made while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice under Section 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 01.04.2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply even after the substitution for the assessment periods prior to substitution. In fact there are strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 of the act have been modified under substituted Section 149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 reduces such period to three years instead of originally prevailing four years under normal circumstances. Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years previously prevailing to ten years in cases where income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 thus contracts as well as expands the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 depending on the question whether the case falls under clause (a) or clause (b). In this context the first proviso to Section 149(1) provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if such notice 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 Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance act, 2021. as per this proviso thus no notice under Section 148 would be issued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were applicable, this f
Indian Express Newspaper vs. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 at page 689
J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
Shayara Bano vs. Union of India 2017 9 SCC 1
The State of Jammu & Kashmir, vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the new provisions of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply to all notices issued after 01.04.2021, and any notices issued with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply to notices issued after 01.04.2021, and any notices issued without fol....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.