IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
M/s Saluja Steel and Power Private Limited & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Income Tax Department through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(T) Nos. 3383, 3397, 3601 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2024
[INCOME TAX] - [LIMITATION FOR REASSESSMENT] - [ACT SECTION LIST: 148, 149, 153A, 153C] - [The court discussed the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly focusing on the limitation period for issuing reassessment notices. It interpreted the amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2021, which expanded the scope for reopening assessments beyond the previous three-year limit under certain conditions. The court concluded that the notices issued were within the permissible time frame, as the search conducted provided sufficient grounds for reassessment, thus affirming the validity of the notices.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ applications seeking to quash notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14, arguing that the notices were barred by limitation as per Section 149. The notices were issued following a search that revealed unaccounted loans linked to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notices were not time-barred due to the amendments in the Income Tax Act, which allowed for reassessment within a ten-year period under specific conditions. The court referenced a previous case that established the applicability of these provisions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the notices issued under Section 148 for the assessment year 2013-14 were beyond the jurisdiction due to being time-barred under Section 149.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendments to the Income Tax Act allowed for the reopening of assessments within a ten-year period if certain conditions were met, including the existence of evidence suggesting income had escaped assessment. The court emphasized that the notices were valid as they were issued following a search that provided sufficient grounds for reassessment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all writ applications, affirming the validity of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and held that the reassessment proceedings were justified.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Since all these appeals involve common question of law as such all were heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. In W.P.(T) No.3383/2023 the petitioner has made following relief:-
(b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to stay the operation of the notice bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1051356711(1) dated 27th of March 2023 (Annexure-1) till the pendency of the writ petition.
In W.P.(T) No.3397/2023 the petitioner has made following relief:-
(b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to stay the operation of the notice bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1051356668(1) dated 27th of March 2023 (Annexure-1) till the pendency of the writ petition.
In W.P.(T) No.3601/2023 the petitioner has made following relief:-
(b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to stay the operation of the notice bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1051356704(1) dated 27th of March 2023 (Annexure-1) till the pendency of the writ petition.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the issue of limitation raised in all these writ applications has already been decided by this Court in the case of Devika Construction and Developers Private Limited Vs. Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [W.P.(T) No. 2650 of 2023] along with [W.P.(T) No.2651 of 2023] as such, all these writ applications may be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the aforesaid fact that the issue of limitation involved in these writ applications has been deliberated in details in the above referred case and the same is squarely applicable in all these cases.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the prayer made in these applications it appears that the same have been preferred for quashing the respective notices on the ground that the same is barred by limitation as preferred under Section 149 of the IT Act and all these writ applications pertains to assessment year 2013-14 (Financial Year 2012-13).
It further transpires that the grounds raised in these applications are that the assessment year 2013-14 cannot be reopened in the light of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act 2021-22; the very same issue has been decided in the case of Devika Construction (supra). For brevity, relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically relating to the time limit for issuing notices and the scope of reassessment procee....
Reassessment notice under Section 148 invalid due to exceeding statutory limitation for assessment years prior to April 2021, breaching prescribed timelines under Income Tax Act.
Reassessment notices issued beyond statutory time limits are invalid; the Income Tax Act specifies clear time frames for such actions based on search operations.
Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was quashed for being time-barred, as it fell outside the statutory limitation period based on the relevant assessment year and provisions of Sections 1....
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.