Facts of the
Case
This batch of writ petitions, including Prashant
Softwares Pvt. Ltd., challenged reassessment proceedings initiated under
Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The
reassessment notices were issued after expiry of the statutory period from the
end of the relevant assessment year.
The sole challenge raised by the petitioners was
that the mandatory sanction required under Section 151 of the Act was not
obtained from the competent authority. Instead, approval for issuance of
notices under Section 148 was granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(JCIT).
The Revenue sought to justify the approval by
placing reliance on the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of
Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), contending that the extended timelines
enabled sanction by the JCIT.
Issues
Involved
Whether reassessment notices
issued after the prescribed period were invalid for want of approval by the competent
authority under Section 151 of the Act.
Whether sanction accorded by the
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax satisfied the statutory requirement of Section
151.
Whether TOLA altered or diluted
the requirement of sanction by the “specified authority” under Section 151.
Whether reassessment proceedings
initiated without proper sanction were liable to be quashed in entirety.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioners contended that Section 151 mandates
approval by higher designated authorities where reassessment is initiated
beyond the prescribed period. Approval by the Joint Commissioner was
impermissible and rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
It was argued that TOLA merely extended limitation
periods and did not amend or override the statutory requirement regarding the
authority competent to grant sanction. The petitioners relied upon consistent
judicial precedents holding that absence of valid sanction goes to the root of
jurisdiction.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The Revenue argued that in view of TOLA, the
reassessment notices were validly issued within the extended time. It was
contended that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the
extended period, approval under Section 151(2) by the Joint Commissioner was
sufficient.
The Revenue further submitted that the reassessment
regime prevailing prior to the Finance Act, 2021 should apply and that the
approvals obtained were in accordance with law.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions and
quashed the reassessment notices. The Court held that:
Section 151 clearly specifies the
authority competent to grant sanction depending upon the time elapsed from the
end of the relevant assessment year.
TOLA only extended timelines and
did not amend or modify the statutory requirement regarding the authority
empowered to grant sanction.
Approval by the Joint
Commissioner in cases where sanction was statutorily required to be granted by
higher authorities was invalid.
Absence of proper sanction is a
jurisdictional defect that vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Court followed and reaffirmed its earlier
decisions as well as judgments of other High Courts consistently holding that
reassessment without valid sanction cannot be sustained.
Important
Clarification
This judgment conclusively clarifies that:
Sanction under Section 151 is a
mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
TOLA does not dilute or override
the requirement of sanction by the specified authority.
Approval by an authority not empowered
under Section 151 renders reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
Reassessment notices issued
without valid sanction are liable to be quashed without examination of merits.
The decision strengthens procedural safeguards and
reiterates strict compliance with statutory conditions governing reassessment
under the Income-tax Act.
Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770194825_PRASHANTSOFTWARESPVT.LTDVsADDITIONALJOINTDEPUTYASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXANR..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