Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 IT Act: “Limitation Period Under Section 153C Strictly Enforced, Procedural Lapses Render Notice Invalid”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court invalidated the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding it to be barred by limitation. The court concluded that the notice, issued for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, violated the prescribed limitation period under Section 153C. The judgment reinforces that reassessment proceedings must strictly adhere to the procedural and temporal requirements set by the Act.

Facts

1. The petitioner challenged the validity of a reassessment notice dated 30.08.2024, issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16.
2. The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a search conducted on or after 01.04.2021 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. However, the petitioner claimed that the notice was issued after the prescribed limitation period of ten years.
3. The petitioner argued that no valid satisfaction note was prepared by the AO of the searched person, a critical procedural requirement for invoking reassessment under Section 153C.
4. Precedents such as Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. were cited to demonstrate that the reassessment notice was beyond the legally permissible timeframe.

Issues

1. Issue 1: Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as defined under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Issue 2: Whether the computation of the limitation period was correctly applied in light of the Finance Act, 2021 amendments to Sections 148 and 149.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. The petitioner argued that the reassessment notice was issued in violation of the limitation period, as AY 2015-16 fell beyond the 10-year period prescribed under the First Proviso to Section 153C.
2. It was highlighted that no satisfaction note was prepared by the AO of the searched person, a prerequisite for reassessment proceedings under Section 153C.
3. A detailed tabular statement was provided by the petitioner, showing that AY 2015-16 exceeded the limitation period:
   • AY 2015-16 is the 11th year, which is beyond the maximum permissible period of ten years.
4. The petitioner contended that the reassessment notice was contrary to the principles established in judicial precedents, such as Dinesh Jindal and Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The Revenue claimed that the reassessment notice was valid as the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the petitioner fulfilled the procedural requirements.
2. The respondents argued that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the petitioner, which was 23.08.2024, and approved on 29.08.2024.

Analysis of the Law

The court carefully analyzed the legal framework under Sections 148, 149, and 153C of the Income Tax Act, along with the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

1. Section 153C: This section governs reassessment for persons other than the searched person. It mandates:
   • Preparation of a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person.
   • Handover of material to the AO of the non-searched person.
2. Computation of Limitation:
   • The court emphasized the importance of the First Proviso to Section 153C, which states that the 10-year period must be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the material is handed over to the jurisdictional AO.
   • In cases of searches conducted after 31.03.2021, the amendments to Section 149 require reassessment proceedings to satisfy both the timelines in Section 149 and the procedural safeguards in Section 153C.
3. Amendments by Finance Act, 2021:
   • While the Finance Act, 2021, introduced changes to Sections 148 and 149, the court clarified that these amendments do not override the procedural requirements of Section 153C.
   • The amended provisions cannot retroactively validate reassessment proceedings initiated in violation of the statutory timelines.

Precedent Analysis

The court relied on several judicial precedents to support its analysis:

1. Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax:
   • This case established that the limitation period for reassessments post-31.03.2021 must consider both the provisions of Section 149 and the procedural requirements of Section 153C.
   • The court in Dinesh Jindal clarified that the starting point for computing the limitation period is the date of handover of material to the jurisdictional AO, not the date of the search.
2. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.:
   • This precedent reaffirmed that the ten-year limitation period must be strictly adhered to, and the AO’s satisfaction note must comply with the procedural safeguards.
3. ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax:
   • The court rejected the argument that uploading material on the insight portal constitutes the starting point for computing limitation under Section 153C.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Failure to Prepare a Valid Satisfaction Note:
   • The court observed that the AO of the searched person did not prepare a satisfaction note, as required under Section 153C.
   • The satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the petitioner was deemed insufficient to meet the procedural requirements.
2. Limitation Period Exceeded:
   • The court agreed with the petitioner’s tabular analysis, which demonstrated that AY 2015-16 fell beyond the ten-year limitation period.
3. Adherence to Precedents:
   • The court relied on established judicial principles, reaffirming that reassessment notices must comply with the procedural and temporal safeguards outlined in the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion

The court allowed the petition and quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148. It held that the notice was barred by limitation and violated the procedural requirements under Section 153C. The court emphasized that reassessment proceedings must strictly adhere to the statutory framework and timelines.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act:

1. It reinforces the procedural safeguards under Section 153C, ensuring that taxpayers are protected from reassessments initiated in violation of statutory timelines.
2. It sets a precedent for interpreting the limitation period under Sections 148 and 153C, particularly in cases involving searches conducted after the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
3. The ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding taxpayers’ rights and ensuring strict compliance with statutory provisions.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: Liquidated Damages Cannot Be Automatically Enforced—Award of ₹6,01,000 Reduced to ₹3,00,000 as Plaintiff Failed to Prove Actual Loss, Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act Applied to Limit Compensation