Section 149(1)(b)

Section 149(1)(b) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 149(1)(b), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Sevensea Vincom P Ltd v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  They reopened AY 2016-17 in 2022 for under Rs 50 lakh. Is the notice time-barred?
  Yes. The Jharkhand High Court held the three-year period for AY 2016-17 ended on 31 March 2020, and because the Department itself alleged escapement of only Rs. 39,21,450 the extended ten-year window in s.149(1)(b) was unavailable. The whole proceeding was without jurisdiction.
• Ganesh Dass Khanna v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I got a section 148 notice for 2016-17 where the alleged escaped income is under Rs 50 lakh. Is three years the limit, or can they use ten?
  Three years. The Delhi High Court held that where the escaped income is below Rs 50 lakh, clause (a) of section 149(1) applies and no notice under section 148 may issue after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It quashed the section 148A(d) orders and the consequent section 148 notices for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 in a batch of writ petitions. It also declared bad in law paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2(ii) of the CBDT Instruction of 11 May 2022, to the extent they propound the travel back in time theory, holding those paragraphs ultra vires section 119 and section 149(1) and, in any event, vague.
• IDFC Ltd v Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer is reopening beyond three years and counting a disallowance of expenditure towards the fifty lakh figure in section 149(1)(b). Is a disallowance income 'represented in the form of an asset'?
  No, not on the text of section 149(1)(b) as it stood from 1 April 2021. The Madras High Court quashed reassessment notices for assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18 in which the officer proposed only disallowances - unrealised foreign exchange loss, bad debts written off, loss on sale of non-performing loans, a section 43B disallowance and a MAT adjustment. The Court found no mention of any asset anywhere in the impugned proceedings, and held that the law then required material indicating the existence of an asset from which escapement could be inferred. It added that the material relied on was already on record and had been through scrutiny.
• Susai Amalanathan Antoni Vincent v Income Tax Officer High CourtHelps department
  The section 148A order does not say the information came from the Risk Management Strategy or an audit objection. Does that make the reassessment bad for want of jurisdiction?
  No. The Madras High Court held that the Risk Management Strategy is merely a phrase for an evolving departmental strategy covering all the sources from which information may be collated, and no limitation should be placed on it. The Board's circulars of 10 and 13 December 2021 list many permissible sources, and the Court held there can be no fetters on an Assessing Officer's power to gather information on which reassessment may be initiated. Here the officer had referred to information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation and Criminal Intelligence), which sufficed for section 148A. The Rs 50 lakh condition in section 149(1)(b) was satisfied on the sale of 19 plots for Rs 1,50,25,585, and sanction under section 151 had been obtained. The petition was dismissed.
• Savita Kapila v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  A section 148 notice was issued in my late father's name after he had died. Is the reassessment valid because we never told the department?
  No. The Delhi High Court quashed the notice and everything that followed. Issuing the notice in the name of the correct person, and not a dead person, is not a procedural requirement but a condition precedent to a valid notice, so the jurisdictional requirement of section 148 was not met. No notice was ever issued to the legal heir within the limitation in section 149(1)(b); the proceedings were simply transferred to her PAN. Section 159 does not help the department where nothing was pending in the assessee's lifetime, and there is no statutory obligation on legal heirs to intimate the death. Sections 292B and 292BB do not cure it.
• CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 — the document the whole Ashish Agarwal exercise was run on CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps departmentPartly overruled — read this first
  My reassessment for an old year was restarted in 2022 on the strength of a Board instruction rather than a fresh notice. What does that instruction actually say, and how much of it is the Supreme Court's?
  This is the instruction, issued under s.119 a week after Union of India v Ashish Agarwal, that told every Assessing Officer how to work out that judgment on the roughly ninety thousand notices issued under the old reassessment law between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021. It directs that the judgment applies to all those notices whether or not they were challenged; that the notices travel back to their original dates and new s.149 is then applied at that point, so a fresh s.148 notice may issue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 only under s.149(1)(b) and for 2016-17 and 2017-18 under s.149(1)(a); that information and material need not be given at all where escaped income for 2013-14 to 2015-16 is less than fifty lakh rupees; and that in the remaining cases the material was to be supplied by 2 June 2022, the assessee had two weeks to reply, and an order under s.148A(d) was to follow with the approval of the specified authority under s.151. Three of those directions go further than the judgment does, and the courts have said so.
• Batukbhai Premjibhai Kalathiya v ITO — a search in May 2024 is neither a section 153A case nor a block assessment: section 152(3) sends it to the old reassessment code High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
  My client was searched in May 2024 and has a section 148 notice for assessment year 2015-16. Which limitation applies, and is the notice good?
  The Gujarat High Court held that because the search fell between 1 April 2021 and 1 September 2024, section 152(3) required sections 147 to 151 to be applied as they stood immediately before the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024, and that the first proviso to section 149(1) then imports the section 153A and section 153C time limits. Computing the ten-year outer limit from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search, as Explanation 1 to section 153A(1) directs, assessment year 2025-26 is the first year and the tenth is 2016-17. Assessment year 2015-16 was therefore beyond the ten years, and the notice was quashed.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.