LAL MAN,CHARKHI DADRI vs. ITO, CHARKHI DADRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5487/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation, considering the extension due to TOLA and the dates of issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent notice under Section 148.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order of the Ld. FAA which arose from an assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's main contention was that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment for Assessment Year 2014-15 was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &, Shri Ayush Garg, CA
For Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR
Hearing: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 02.06.2025

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lal Man, Vs ITO, (Prop. M/s L.M. Goyal & Co.), Charkhi Dadri, S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana. Aashram Road, Backside Geeta Bhawan, Charkhi Dadri – 127 306, Haryana. PAN: AJEPM7000R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ayush Garg, CA Revenue by : Ms Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2025 ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.10.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short) in Appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10261081 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 28.05.2023 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds of appeal on merits, the assessee has raised ground No.6 that the assessment completed u/s 147 is invalid since the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation. The fundamental facts as asserted by the ld. AR could not be disputed by the ld. DR.

3.

We find that in regard to the present assessment year 2014-15, original notice was issued on 17.06.2021. After the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, a fresh notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022. The issue is settled and now rests by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46. In regard to AY 2014-15, the period of limitation as per section 149 of the Act would have been 31.03.2021. The period of limitation as per the Act r.w. TOLA stood extended till 30.06.2021. The original notice u/s 148 of the Act which was deemed to be a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 17.06.2021. Thus, the time surviving from the date of issuance of deemed show cause notice till expiry of period as extended by TOLA from 17.06.2021 to 30.06.2021work out to be 13 days. Thus, the period of notice stood extended till 15.06.2022 and the last date for issuing notice was 28.06.2022, but, the notice was issued on 29.07.2022. 2

4.

In the light of the aforesaid, the ld. AR has successfully established that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, this ground is sustained. The impugned assessment is quashed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →