Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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