Case Law Details
ITO Vs Kalpana Buildmart Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The case concerns reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year (AY) 2014–15 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had challenged a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148, along with the preceding notice under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d). The core issue before the High Court was whether the reassessment notice was barred by limitation.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Delhi HC Quashed Reassessment Notice as Six-Year Limitation Had Expired
Before the High Court, it was submitted that the controversy was covered by an earlier decision which held that reassessment notices under the new regime could not be issued for earlier assessment years if they were already time-barred under the limitation provisions of the old regime. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, which examined the scope of the proviso to Section 149(1)(b).
In Rajeev Bansal, the Supreme Court explained that no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021 if such notice was already barred at the time of issuance under the limitation prescribed in Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. It was clarified that for assessment years 2021–22 and prior, a notice under the new regime could be issued only if the limitation period under the old regime continued to exist. The Court further held that the proviso ensures that the extended ten-year limitation under the new regime applies prospectively and does not revive cases where the six-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year had already expired.
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that for AY 2014–15, the six-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31.03.2021. Since the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued after this date, it was held to be barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent concurred with this position. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned notice and allowed the petition, disposing of all pending applications.
The Revenue challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court found that there was a gross delay of 327 days in filing the petition, which had not been satisfactorily explained. Independently of the delay, the Court also found no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. There is a gross delay of 327 days in filing the Special Leave Petition(s) which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner(s).
2. Even otherwise, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Author Bio
