Wtax/449/2022 Of Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And 3 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 449 of 2022 Petitioner :- Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Private LimitedRespondent :- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And 3 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Parv AgarwalCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1.Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitionerand Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department. 2.This writ petition has been filed praying for the followingreliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashingthe notice dated 30.03.2021 issued by the respondent no.2 under Section148 of the Act as also the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by6 respondentno.3, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the 'reasons tobelieve' for assumption of jurisdiction against the petitioner for thAssessment Year 2015-16. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restrainingthe respondents from proceeding with the reassessment proceedingsagainst the petitioner for the AY-2015-16." 3.The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioner before us is that the normal period of limitation forissuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) would be six yearswhere escapement of income from tax is one lacs or more. Inthis regard, he referred to the provision of Section 149(1) (b) ofthe Act of 1961. He further submits that since prior approval ofthe Principal Commissioner in terms of provisions of Section151 of the Act of 1961 has not been obtained for issuance ofnotice under Section 148(1) of the Act of 1961, therefore,issuance of notice after expiry of four years but before expiry ofsix years, the notice is bad and without jurisdiction. No otherarguments have been made before us by the learned counsel forthe petitioner. 4.Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the Income Tax Department submits that thenormal period of limitation for re-opening as provided underSection 149(1) (a) of the Act of 1961 is four years in all casesbut where four years have expired but not six years and escaped assessment amounts to or likely to amount to Rs. one lac ormore for that year, then still notice may be issued but afterobtaining approval of the Principal Commissioner as per theprovisions of Section 151 of the Act of 1961. 5.Since, in the present set of fact, the normal period oflimitation for re-opening for the assessment year 2015-2016was available till 31.3.2020 which was extended by theTaxation and other Law ( Relaxation of Certain Provisions)Ordinance, 2020 and the notification issued thereunder, takinginto the situation created due to pandemic Covid-19, the normalperiod of limitation was available till 31.3.2021. The impugnednotice has been issued prior to the expiry of normal period oflimitation, therefore, the impugned notice does not suffer fromany infirmity and is valid. 6.We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the parties. 7.Section 149 of the Act of 1961 provides for limitation forissuance of notice under Section 148. Section 149 as isextended prior to amendment of Finance Act, 2021 isreproduced below: "149.Time limit for notice- (1) No notice under section 148 shall beissued for the relevant assessment year- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessmentyear, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c). (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the endof the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to taxwhich has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to onelakh rupees or more for that year, 6.We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the parties. 7.Section 149 of the Act of 1961 provides for limitation forissuance of notice under Section 148. Section 149 as isextended prior to amendment of Finance Act, 2021 isreproduced below: "149.Time limit for notice- (1) No notice under section 148 shall beissued for the relevant assessment year- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessmentyear, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c). (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the endof the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to taxwhich has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to onelakh rupees or more for that year, (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from theend of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to anyasset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India,chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment." 8.The provisions of Section 149(1) of the Act of 1961 are plainand unambiguous. Bare reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1)of Section 149 leaves no manner of doubt that normal period oflimitation for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of1961 is four years from the end of the relevant assessment year,unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c). Thus, afternormal period of limitation of four years has expired, largerperiod of limitation under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) ofSection 149 of the Act of 1961 may be invoked, ifcircumstances so exist. 9.In the present set of fact, the normal period of limitation offour years was available to the Assessing Authority till31.3.2020 which was extended for one year by the aforesaidOrdinance, 2020 and the notification issued thereunder. Thus,the normal period of limitation available to the AssessingAuthority on the facts of the present case was till 31.3.2021.The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 wasissued by the Assessing Authority on 30.3.2021 which does notrequire any prior approval of the Principal Commissioner interms of the then existing provisions of Section 151 of the Act,1961. Therefore, the impugned notice under Section 148 of theAct of 1961 issued by the Assessing Authority is wholly validand same has been issued well within the period of limitation. 10.For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit inthis writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and ishereby dismissed. Order Date :- 29.3.2022sfa/