Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The extension granted by amendments (such as the Taxation Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020) extended the limitation period for AY 2014-15 up to 30.06.2021, but notices issued thereafter are generally barred ["Samuel Gnanaraj vs Income tax officer - Madras"], ["Kandasamy veluswamy vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY HISAR vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HISAR HISAR - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["Sevaram Anandram Tirthwani VS Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot - Gujarat"]- ["SHREE RADHEYSHYAM SYN-FAB PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD - Gujarat"]- ["BHAVANBHAI VALJIBHAI HIRPARA VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT - Gujarat"]- ["Siddhi Sureshbhai Pandya VS Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat - Gujarat"]- ["Samuel Gnanaraj vs Income tax officer - Madras"]- ["Kandasamy veluswamy vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Madras"]- ["Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Telangana"]- ["Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Telangana"]- ["VISHWANATH VEERAPPA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - Karnataka"]
In the complex world of Indian income tax law, reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can catch taxpayers off guard. Imagine receiving such a notice in 2022 for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15—a period that ended nearly seven years prior. The burning question arises: whether notice for reassessment can issue for the assessment year 2014-15 in the year 2022? This post delves into the legal framework, judicial precedents, and recent case laws to provide clarity. While this is general information based on statutory provisions and court rulings, it is not personalized legal advice—consult a tax professional for your specific situation.
Reassessment proceedings allow tax authorities to reopen completed assessments if they believe income has escaped taxation. However, these powers are not unlimited. Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposes strict time limits on issuing notices under Section 148. Generally, no notice can be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This extends to six years if the escaped income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854.
For AY 2014-15, which ends on 31 March 2015:- The three-year limit expired on 31 March 2018.- The six-year limit expired on 31 March 2021.
A notice issued in 2022 clearly falls beyond these periods, making it generally time-barred unless exceptional circumstances apply Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that these limitation periods are substantive and cannot be overridden by procedural relaxations or administrative instructions Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) VS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 354.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2023) is pivotal. The Court clarified that notices issued after the limitation period under the old regime (pre-Finance Act 2021 amendments) are invalid unless the law explicitly provides for extension or revival. It held: notices issued after the expiry of limitation are invalid unless law expressly states otherwise Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854. Mere CBDT instructions or relaxations under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA) do not extend these statutory limits Vikas Gupta VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1001.
High Courts have echoed this stance. In multiple rulings, notices beyond the prescribed periods have been quashed as lacking jurisdiction Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) VS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 354. For instance, the courts affirm: The reopening of assessment notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation if issued beyond the established time frame as per amended Section 149 Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 21192.
Applying these principles, a reassessment notice for AY 2014-15 in 2022 is typically invalid. The standard three-year window closed in 2018, and even the extended six-year period ended in 2021. Without evidence of escaped income over Rs. 50 lakhs or other statutory exceptions (not indicated in standard cases), such notices cannot stand Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854.
Recent judgments reinforce this for similar timelines. In a Bombay High Court case involving AY 2014-15, the court quashed a notice issued beyond four years, ruling it illegal and without jurisdiction due to lack of fresh tangible material and failure to dispose of objections. The impugned assessment order was set aside for violating natural justice principles Crystal Pride Developers vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 616.
Similarly, another petition for AY 2014-15 saw the notice under Section 148 dated 01.04.2021 (close to 2022 timelines) and subsequent reassessment orders quashed as clearly barred by limitation and consequently without jurisdiction Ajay Bhandari VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(All) 751. These cases highlight courts' strict scrutiny of time-barred notices.
Other precedents provide further context:- In a challenge to a Section 148 notice for AY 2013-14 (analogous to 2014-15), the court quashed it for being based on a change of opinion without fresh material, especially after prior Section 263 proceedings Dilip Gangaram Patil Vs Additional/joint/deputy Assistant Commissioner Of Income/income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 283. The notice dated 25 March 2021 was set aside.- For AY 2017-18, a notice was held barred beyond the six-year period under amended Section 149, with proceedings deemed invalid during pendency of rectification Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 21192.- A public trust's AY 2014-15 reopening was invalidated as it relied on previously examined materials, constituting mere change of opinion: Reopening of assessment requires fresh tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) VS Union of India.
These rulings underscore that even if issued near the cusp (like 2021), notices for older AYs like 2014-15 in 2022 fail the limitation test Crystal Pride Developers vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 616Ajay Bhandari VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(All) 751.
While rare, exceptions could include:- Escaped income > Rs. 50 lakhs: Extending to six years Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854.- Specific statutory extensions: Such as under Finance Act amendments for certain AYs, but not generally for pre-2021 periods without explicit revival Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854.- Fraud or wilful misrepresentation: Potentially allowing longer periods, though post-2021 regime changes apply prospectively.
However, the provided documents and judgments do not indicate such grounds for AY 2014-15 in 2022. Courts stress: notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation period are invalid, and procedural relaxations do not extend these periods unless explicitly provided Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) VS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 354.
If you receive a time-barred notice:1. Verify the timeline: Calculate from the end of AY.2. File objections: Challenge under Section 148A (if applicable) or via writ petition.3. Gather precedents: Cite Ashish Agarwal and similar cases Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854Crystal Pride Developers vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 616.4. Seek professional help: Tax advocates can file for quashing in High Court.
In conclusion, while tax authorities wield significant powers, limitation laws protect taxpayers from indefinite scrutiny. Stay informed, act promptly, and remember—this analysis is for educational purposes. For tailored advice, engage a qualified tax expert.
References:1. Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 854: Limitation under Section 149 and Ashish Agarwal.2. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) VS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 354: Invalidity of post-limitation notices.3. Vikas Gupta VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1001: No override by relaxations.4. Crystal Pride Developers vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 616: Quashing for AY 2014-15.5. Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 21192: Barred by amended Section 149.6. Dilip Gangaram Patil Vs Additional/joint/deputy Assistant Commissioner Of Income/income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 283, Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) VS Union of India, Ajay Bhandari VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(All) 751: Supporting precedents.
#TaxReassessment, #IncomeTaxIndia, #Section148
The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice issued under section 148 on 27.07.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. ... /2025, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No.5053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No.5053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No.5053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No.5053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2014#HL_EN....
-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15. ... year 2014-15 as the case may be. ... The case of the petitioner for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be reopened. The assessment year is 2013-14 (01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013) and assessment year 2014-15 (01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014). The end of #HL_S....
the Assessment Year 2014-2015 3. ... a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in PAN AFNPG6449R for Assessment year AY 2014-15 and the Impugned order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 issued by Respondent in DIN and Letter No. ... old regime extended upto 30.06.2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 16. ... Since the income allegedly escaping assessment is more than Rs.50,00,000/- viz., ....
ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044184560(1) (Annexure – G) passed by the 1st Respondent under section 148A(d) of the Act, rejecting the Petitioner’s objection as to the initiation of the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2014-15; st Respondent (Annexure-J) under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15; (F) Passing such other or further orders as this Hon’ble High Court may think fit in the facts and circumstanc....
the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act for the asst.year 2014-15 being a fit case have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TN&P), Chennai vide CHE/COORD/148A/2022-23/341 dated 27.07.2022 and hence, this order is passed. ... 3.The impugned order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act proposes to issue the impugned Notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 for the As....
-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15. ... year 2014-15 as the case may be. ... The case of the petitioner for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be reopened. The assessment year is 2013-14 (01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013) and assessment year 2014-15 (01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014). The end of #HL_S....
-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15. ... year 2014-15 as the case may be. ... The case of the petitioner for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be reopened. The assessment year is 2013-14 (01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013) and assessment year 2014-15 (01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014). The end of #HL_S....
-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15. ... year 2014-15 as the case may be. ... The case of the petitioner for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be reopened. The assessment year is 2013-14 (01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013) and assessment year 2014-15 (01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014). The end of #HL_S....
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 Act being issued for assessment years up to 2021-22 (in this case, it is Assessment Year 2017-18) beyond a certain date. Therefore, the way the section would operate, is to first decide whether a #H....
All these decisions relate to the Assessment Year 2017-18 except the case of Godrej Industries Ltd., (supra) which relates to the Assessment Year 2014-15. ... 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. ... notice under Section 148 o....
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents, its servants, subordinates, agents and successors in office; Advait M. Sethna, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. A. Issue Before The Court:- 2. The pivotal issue for consideration is whether the assessment order dated 29 March 2022 (“impugned order” for short) read with the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (....
20. Both the petitions are disposed of. Writ Petition No.2021 of 2022 :- 19. For the reasons recorded in Writ Petition No.2771 of 2022 the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25 March 2021 for the assessment year 2014-15 is also quashed and set aside. 18. In view of the above, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 25 March 2021 is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
“i) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 pursuant to the notice for reassessment which has been issued on 23 March 2018, in accordance with law; ii) The issue as to whether the notice under Section 148 for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 is valid is kept open to be urged in appropriate proceedings after the assessment order is passed; 14. The petitioner filed its objections to the reasons as furnished to it to reopen the assessment. Such objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed by respondent no.4. Henc....
Thereafter, notice for recovery was also issued for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under the Central Sales Tax Act.
For all the reasons aforestated, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued on 01.04.2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and the impugned notice dated 13.01.2022 under Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and the reassessment order dated 13.01.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 passed by the respondent No.4 are hereby quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
