Income tax Reopening Notice Issued within Limitation: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Patna HC Order Dismissing Petition [Read Judgement]
The high court observed that the petitioner’s reliance on Rajeev Bansal was misplaced since that decision dealt with Section 149(1)(b), whereas the present case concerned Section 149(1)(a).
Income tax - Notice Issued within Limitation - Supreme Court - Interfere - Patna HC - Dismissing Petition - taxscan
Income tax - Notice Issued within Limitation - Supreme Court - Interfere - Patna HC - Dismissing Petition - taxscan
The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with a Patna High Court judgment that upheld the validity of a reopening notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that it was issued within the statutory limitation period.
The facts are a writ petition filed by Chandra Shekhar before the Patna High Court challenging a notice dated 30.04.2024 issued under Section 148 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, along with an order under Section 148A(d). The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act and was therefore without jurisdiction.
The petitioner contended that the relevant date for computing limitation should be 22.04.2024, the date of the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer pursuant to his reply on 31.03.2024. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and submitted that the notice was time-barred.
Income Tax Bill 2025: What’s New, What’s Gone, and What You Must Know! Click here
The Revenue, however, argued that the first notice issued on 28.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) was the crucial date for reckoning limitation, which was well within the three-year period prescribed under Section 149(1)(a). The subsequent notice dated 22.04.2024 was merely consequential, issued in response to the petitioner’s request for additional information. Therefore, the proceedings were not barred by time.
After examining the statutory framework, particularly the 5th and 6th provisos to Section 149(1), the Patna High Court held that the limitation period must be reckoned from the initial notice dated 28.03.2024, which was validly issued within three years from the end of AY 2020-21.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s reliance on Rajeev Bansal was misplaced since that decision dealt with Section 149(1)(b), whereas the present case concerned Section 149(1)(a). Concluding that the petition was premature, the High Court dismissed it, while granting liberty to the petitioner to participate in the reassessment proceedings.
Income Tax Bill 2025: What’s New, What’s Gone, and What You Must Know! Click here
Aggrieved by the high court order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The apex court, however, refused to entertain the challenge.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while condoning the delay, observed that there were no good grounds to interfere with the High Court’s findings. Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
