Facts of the Case

The present batch of writ petitions concerned reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016–17 and 2017–18.

The central issue arose from notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein:

  • The alleged escaped income in all cases was below ₹50 lakhs.
  • Notices were issued after the expiry of three years from the relevant assessment year.
  • The Revenue relied on:
    • The Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal (2022),
    • CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022, and
    • TOLA (COVID-related extensions).

Petitioners challenged the validity of such notices on the ground that they were time-barred under Section 149(1)(a).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 beyond three years are valid when:
    • Escaped income is less than ₹50 lakhs?
  2. Whether Revenue can invoke:
    • Extended limitation of up to 10 years under Section 149(1)(b) without satisfying statutory conditions?
  3. Whether:
    • TOLA,
    • CBDT Instruction (11.05.2022), and
    • Ashish Agarwal judgment
      allow notices to “travel back in time” to overcome limitation?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Limitation expired:
    For AY 2016–17 and 2017–18, limitation under Section 149(1)(a) (3 years) ended on 31.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 respectively.
  • Section 149(1)(b) not applicable:
    Extended limitation (up to 10 years) applies only if escaped income ≥ ₹50 lakhs, which was not the case.
  • No “travel back in time” doctrine:
    • Neither the statute nor the Supreme Court judgment permits retrospective validation of notices.
    • TOLA does not create such legal fiction.
  • CBDT Instruction invalid:
    • Cannot override statutory provisions or Supreme Court ruling.
    • Deprives assessees of statutory protections.
  • Effect of Finance Act, 2021:
    • Introduced a new reassessment regime effective from 01.04.2021.
    • Old provisions ceased to exist due to substitution, not mere amendment.
  • Strict interpretation of tax laws:
    • Limitation provisions must be applied strictly.
    • Benefit of ambiguity goes to the assessee.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Reliance on Ashish Agarwal case:
    • Notices issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 should be treated as valid under the new regime.
  • TOLA extension applicable:
    • Limitation extended up to 30.06.2021 due to COVID relaxations.
  • Exclusion of time period:
    • Time consumed in compliance with Supreme Court directions should be excluded.
  • CBDT Instruction valid:
    • Issued to implement Supreme Court judgment and ensure reassessment proceedings do not fail.
  • Notices within limitation:
    • When computed appropriately, reassessment proceedings are within permissible time.

 

Court Findings / Order

1. Limitation under Section 149 is Mandatory

  • For cases where escaped income is below ₹50 lakhs, only Section 149(1)(a) applies.
  • Limitation is strictly 3 years.

2. Extended Limitation Cannot Be Invoked

  • Section 149(1)(b) applies only when escaped income ≥ ₹50 lakhs.
  • Revenue cannot bypass this statutory condition.

3. No “Travel Back in Time” Concept

  • The theory advanced by Revenue is unsupported by law.
  • Neither:
    • TOLA, nor
    • Supreme Court judgment in Ashish Agarwal
      allows retrospective validation of notices.

4. CBDT Instruction Cannot Override Law

  • Administrative instructions cannot:
    • Override statutory provisions, or
    • Curtail rights available to assessees.

5. Finance Act, 2021 Applies Fully

  • New reassessment regime applies to all notices issued after 01.04.2021.
  • Old provisions cannot be revived indirectly.

6. Notices Held Time-Barred

  • All impugned reassessment notices were declared invalid and barred by limitation.

Important Clarifications by Court

  • Substitution vs Amendment:
    • Finance Act, 2021 replaced old provisions; they no longer exist.
  • Strict Interpretation of Tax Law:
    • Courts cannot extend limitation through interpretation.
  • TOLA Scope Limited:
    • Only extends timelines, does not modify substantive provisions.
  • Supreme Court Judgment Scope:
    • Ashish Agarwal only converted notices procedurally, not substantively extended limitation

      Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS10112023CW115272022_212005.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.