MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

No Notice Under Section 148 if Three Years Have Elapsed: High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Beyond Three-Year Limitation for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Lakehika


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has set aside reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17 and 2017-18, citing the expiration of the prescribed three-year limitation period. This decision, pronounced by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia, marks a significant moment in the interpretation of the Finance Act, 2021, regarding reassessment procedures.

The court observed, “No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year,” highlighting the stringent adherence to the limitation period as mandated by the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act. This statement, encapsulating the crux of the judgment, serves as a crucial guideline for the issuance of reassessment notices.

This ruling came in response to a series of writ petitions challenging the validity of reassessment notices that were issued post the enactment of the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioners contended that these notices were beyond the permissible time frame, making a compelling case against the extended reassessment notices.

The High Court, in its detailed analysis, declared the ‘travel back in time’ theory, as propounded in the CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022, to be invalid in law. This theory suggested that extended reassessment notices could retroactively apply to their original issuance date, a concept the Court firmly rejected.

Further elaborating on the legislative intent behind the Finance Act, 2021, the Court underscored the reduction of the time limit for issuing notices under Section 148, aiming to provide ease of doing business and reduce litigation. The judgment emphasized that in cases where the escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 148 is strictly three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

This decision is a significant stride towards reinforcing the legal framework governing reassessment notices, offering clarity and predictability to taxpayers. The ruling also underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting legislative changes critically and ensuring that administrative actions align with the legislative intent.

The judgment has been welcomed by the legal community, with several advocates representing the petitioners appreciating the Court’s thorough examination of the legal nuances involved in the case. The Revenue authorities are expected to review their procedures in light of this ruling to ensure compliance with the statutory limitation periods.

Date of Decision: 10 November  2023

GANESH DASS KHANNA VS INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR

Latest Legal News