Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has examined the application of Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which permits reassessment proceedings to give effect to conclusive findings by an appellate or revisional authority regarding escapement of income. The Court stated that invoking Section 150 requires a "strict and cautious application" to avoid reopening assessments based on incidental, tangential, or extraneous observations.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that both 'findings' and 'directions' under Section 150 carry precise statutory meanings. The Court stated: "A 'finding' refers to a decision on a core issue directly necessary for resolving the specific case at hand, while a 'direction' is a statutorily empowered instruction that is indispensable for the disposal of the case. Both terms demand a direct and substantive nexus to the matter under adjudication and cannot extend to incidental or ancillary conclusions."

The matter concerned Capital Power Systems Ltd., which contested the invocation of Section 150 against it following reassessment proceedings initiated by the Revenue. These proceedings arose from findings rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) during the reassessment of the company’s director, Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal. Mr. Bansal, following a search conducted on June 26, 2006, at the Capital Group of Companies, had disclosed an additional income of ₹7 crores. However, the ITAT deleted additions to his income, holding that the reassessment should only reference materials seized during the search.

Subsequently, the assessing officer invoked Section 150 to reassess Capital Power Systems Ltd., asserting that the ITAT had concluded the ₹7 crores was attributable to the company and not individuals. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], however, found no specific direction or finding by the ITAT to tax this amount in the hands of the company. This conclusion was upheld by the ITAT, which dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, noting that the disclosure by the director was made on behalf of the Capital Group of Companies, not solely the respondent.

In its judgment, the High Court examined the language of Section 150, which allows reassessment to give effect to findings or directions contained in appellate or judicial orders. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964), which held that a 'finding' must pertain to a material question directly necessary for resolving the specific case at hand. It added: "It is not sufficient for a finding to be incidental or collateral; it must be directly connected to the resolution of the issue under consideration."

The Court found that the assessing officer selectively relied on portions of the ITAT’s order while disregarding its overall conclusions. It noted that the ITAT order reflected significant contradictions in the director’s statements, making them unreliable without corroborative evidence. The ITAT had concluded that the undisclosed income should be determined based on loose papers seized during the search, rather than on unsupported statements.

The High Court observed: "A statement must be considered in its entirety, and the Revenue cannot selectively rely on certain portions of a statement while disregarding the rest of it. Further, in case of statements more than one, the cumulative effect of the statements has to be considered for reaching a just decision of a given case." It further held that Section 150 permits reassessment only when findings or directions are dispositive of the issue and require implementation through procedural steps.

Concluding that no conclusive findings warranted the invocation of Section 150, the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. It upheld the earlier decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, which held that the ₹7 crores in question could not be added to the respondent’s income due to the absence of clear evidence or specific appellate directions.

Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -1 v. Capital Power Systems Ltd.
Case Number: ITA 501/2024
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

[View/Download order]