Facts
of the Case
The
petitioner, Atma Ram Singhania, along with other connected assessees,
challenged reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2015-16
through notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The
reassessment notices were issued after the expiry of four years from the
end of the relevant assessment year. The sanction for issuance of such notices
was granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
The
petitioners contended that such approval was contrary to Section 151, as
sanction beyond the stipulated period could only be accorded by higher
designated authorities, and not by the JCIT. The Revenue relied on the Taxation
and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020
(TOLA) to justify the reassessment action.
Issues
Involved
Whether
reassessment notices issued under Section 148 after four years were
valid when sanctioned by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Whether
TOLA altered or diluted the mandatory approval requirements under
Section 151.
Whether
sanction granted by an incompetent authority renders reassessment
proceedings void.
Which
version of Section 151 (pre- or post-Finance Act, 2021) governs such
reassessment actions.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The
petitioners argued that:
Section 151 mandates that reassessment beyond the prescribed
period must be approved only by specified senior authorities.
Approval by the JCIT was jurisdictionally defective.
TOLA merely extended timelines and did not amend the hierarchy
of sanctioning authorities.
Absence of valid sanction strikes at the root of
jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment notices void ab initio.
The position is well-settled by consistent High Court
jurisprudence, including Twylight Infrastructure, JM Financial,
and Siemens Financial Services.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The
Revenue contended that:
TOLA
extended the limitation period and thereby validated the reassessment action.
Since
notices were issued within the extended period, sanction by the JCIT was
sufficient.
The
reassessment action was in accordance with the statutory scheme prevailing at
the relevant time.
Court
Order / Findings
The
Delhi High Court decisively rejected the Revenue’s submissions and held that:
TOLA does not amend or override Section 151; it merely extends time limits.
Sanction under Section 151 must strictly conform to the authority
prescribed by statute.
Where reassessment is initiated beyond the relevant period, approval
by the JCIT is impermissible.
Sanction by an incompetent authority constitutes a jurisdictional
defect, not a curable irregularity.
Consistent judicial opinion across High Courts confirms that statutory
safeguards cannot be diluted by executive action.
The
Court followed and reaffirmed:
Twylight Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi HC)
JM Financial & Investment Consultancy
Services Pvt. Ltd.
(Bombay HC)
Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay HC)
Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO (Delhi HC)
Important
Clarification
The
Court clarified that:
Extension of limitation under TOLA does not affect the rank
or competence of the sanctioning authority.
Approval requirements under Section 151 are mandatory and
jurisdictional.
Reassessment proceedings initiated without valid sanction are non
est in law.
Final
Outcome
Writ
Petitions Allowed
Reassessment Notices Issued Under
Section 148 Quashed
Proceedings Held Void for Want of Proper
Sanction
Revenue Granted Liberty Only to Act in
Accordance with Law, If Permissible
Link
to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770191811_ATMARAMSINGHANIAVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCIRCLE222DELHIANDORS.pdf
Disclaimer
This
content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only.
Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It
is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The
author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this
content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment