Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Mohd Athar Anjum (Supreme Court of India)
The case concerns the validity of a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016–17, along with related proceedings under Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d). The petitioner challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 on the ground that it was issued beyond the permissible limitation period. The petitioner relied on prior judicial precedents, including a decision of the High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court interpreting the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.
Read Delhi HC Judgment in this case: Delhi HC Quashed Reopening Notice as Issued Beyond Six-Year Limitation
The legal issue revolved around whether a reassessment notice could be issued under the new regime when the limitation period prescribed under the old regime had already expired. The relevant Supreme Court interpretation clarified that no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued for assessment years up to 2021–22 if the time limit under the old regime had already lapsed. Specifically, it was held that if the six-year limitation period from the end of the relevant assessment year had expired, reopening would be barred. The proviso to Section 149(1)(b) ensures that the extended ten-year limitation under the new regime applies only prospectively and does not revive time-barred cases.
In the present case, the six-year period for AY 2016–17 expired on 31.03.2023. Since the reassessment notice was issued on 31.03.2024, it was beyond the statutory time limit. The High Court, therefore, held that the notice was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment notice under Section 148, the proceedings under Section 148A, and the assessment order passed under Section 147 dated 15.03.2025 were set aside.
The matter was carried to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order. Accordingly, the delay was condoned, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The final outcome confirms that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the limitation period prescribed under the old regime cannot be sustained under the new regime. The decision reinforces that statutory timelines under Section 149 must be strictly followed and that the extended limitation under the amended provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to revive barred cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Author Bio
