PUTHA BHAGYA LAKSHMI,KADAPA vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. 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

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

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

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

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