Mohd Athar Anjum Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Reopening u/s 148 beyond six years from end of AY 2016–17 held time-barred; notice and consequent assessment quashed in view of limitation under proviso to Section 149 as clarified in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
Core Issue: Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016–17 after expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation in view of the first proviso to Section 149(1), and whether such time-barred cases can be reopened under the new reassessment regime.
Read SC Judgment in this case: Reopening Invalid as Notice Issued Beyond Six-Year Limitation Period: SC
Facts: The petitioner challenged reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2016–17. The Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148, preceded by proceedings under Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d). The petitioner contended that under the erstwhile provisions of Section 149, the limitation period of six years expired on 31.03.2023, and therefore, on the date of issuance of notice, the case was already time-barred.
Despite this, the Assessing Officer proceeded under the amended provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and completed reassessment by passing an order under Section 147 on 15.03.2025. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings on the ground of limitation, relying on judicial precedents interpreting the scope of the first proviso to Section 149(1).
