Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 29 days due to cervical spondylosis. The assessee also raised additional grounds challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as being barred by limitation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's bona fide medical reasons. The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was beyond the 'surviving period' as per Supreme Court rulings, making it time-barred and invalid.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and within the prescribed time limit, considering the Supreme Court's directions on the 'surviving period' for reassessment notices.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 149, 69, 139, 115BBE, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Putha Bhagya Vs. Income Tax Officer Lakshmi Ward 15(1) KADAPA Hyderabad PAN:AMXPP6295K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate SNSR Chinmai राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri A. Suresh, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Smt. Putha Bhagya Lakshmi (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 25.07.2025 for the A.Y.2017-18.
2. At the outset, it is seen from the record that there is a delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be filed on or before 30.09.2025, however, the same has been filed on 29.10.2025 resulting in a delay of 29 days. It was further submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was suffering from cervical spondylosis and was advised complete bed rest for a period of one month. In support of the same, the assessee has placed on record a medical certificate. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and therefore prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned.
The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record including the affidavit and medical certificate filed by the assessee. We find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The explanation offered by the assessee appears to be bona fide and reasonable. Further, the delay involved is not substantial. It is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, and when sufficient cause is shown, a liberal view
Page 2 of 13 should be taken in condoning the delay. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Assessing Officer is not valid as the same was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa who has no jurisdiction; 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Assessing Officer is also not valid in view of the provisions of Sec.149 of the I.T. Act ; 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the notice u/s 148 was issued after a period of 3 years and the income escaping assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs; 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have found that the notice u/s 147 is not valid and ought to have quashed the assessment order; 6) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.16,64,000/- being the deposit made with Kapil Chit Funds Private Ltd., without considering the detailed explanation submitted before him. 7) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing
6. The assessee also raised the following additional grounds before us: “1. The notice under section 148 dated 21.06.2021 issued after a period of three years with the approval of the JCIT, Range-9 Hyderabad is invalid.
The notice under section 148 dated 28.07.2022 got barred by limitation as it is not issued within time allowed and also the Page 3 of 13
approval of CCIT or the Principal CCIT is not obtained for issue of the said notice.
3. Without prejudice to the above contention, the appellant submits that the rate of tax applied under section 115BBE @ 60% is applicable for the A.Y 2017-18. The tax is le3viable @ 30%”. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that additional grounds so filed are admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Ld. DR also did not make any objection for admission of the additional grounds. The prayer for admission of additional grounds noted above which are not in memorandum of appeal are being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional grounds are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2017–18 under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 21.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,75,000/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 15.05.2023, making an addition of Rs.16,64,000/- under section 69 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.20,39,000/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the action of the Ld. AO.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is pressing only ground no. 2 of additional ground challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, being issued beyond the surviving period as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the validity of reassessment proceedings is liable to be examined in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), wherein it has been held that reassessment notices issued after 01.04.2021 pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) must be issued within the “surviving period” computed with reference to TOLA. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the computation of limitation period placed on record and submitted that the surviving period available to the Ld. AO expired on 25.06.2022, whereas the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 28.07.2022, i.e., beyond the permissible time limit. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that as the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the surviving period, the same is Page 5 of 13 liable to be treated as time-barred and invalid. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO on the basis of the said invalid notice is liable to be quashed. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi vs. ACIT in dated 3.7.2025, wherein under identical facts, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the Ld. AO has followed due procedure as per the amended provisions and the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (Supra). In this regard, the Ld. DR has filed a written submission, which is to the following effect:
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. The solitary issue before us for consideration is whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra). In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 108 to 114 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), which is to the following effect:
On perusal of the above, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the mechanism for calculation of the surviving period and finally at para no. 114(h) has held that all the notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside. In this regard, we have gone through the computation of the surviving period placed before us by the assessee, which is to the following effect:
On perusal of the above, we find that the assessee has given dates of various events necessary for computation of surviving period and has calculated the limitation period for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra). The Revenue has not disputed the factual aspect with regard to the date of the said events. We also do not find any mistake in the said computation of surviving period and the limitation period for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Accordingly, we find that in the present case the surviving period available to the Ld. AO was 9 days. After
Page 9 of 13 excluding the period as per the third proviso to section 149 of the Act and the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the last permissible date for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act was 25.06.2022. However, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 28.07.2022, which is beyond the surviving period by 33 days. In this regard, we have also gone through para nos. 10 to 17 of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi vs. ACIT (Supra), which is to the following effect:
On perusal of above, we find that the Coordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi vs. ACIT (Supra) under the identical facts relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mrs. Thulasidass Prabavathi vs. ITO (W.P No.19010 of 2022) and the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO & Ors (W.P.C. 16232/2024) has held that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued after the surviving period is time barred and reassessment order pursuant to the same is set aside. In the Page 11 of 13 present case, we have already held that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 is beyond the surviving period by 33 days. Therefore, respectfully following the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), and the Coordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi vs. ACIT (Supra), we hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 is time barred and bad in law. Once the notice itself is held to be invalid, the entire reassessment proceedings including the order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act cannot survive. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO on the basis of the said invalid notice is quashed.
The contention of the Ld. DR that the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued within the prescribed time in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act is not acceptable, in view of the specific directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra) with regard to the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act within the surviving period.