ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SURBHI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5447/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A)'s view that the reassessment notice dated July 31, 2022, was barred by limitation. Since the root cause of the assessment (the notice) was held to be beyond the period of limitation, the entire assessment proceedings were quashed as bad in law.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who quashed the reassessment notice as barred by limitation for AY 2017-18. The assessee, a jeweller, had filed its return and the AO had information regarding large cash deposits during demonetization that were unexplained. A reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation, considering the applicability of TOLA and Supreme Court decisions, and whether the additions made on merits survive if the notice is invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 68,Section 149,Section 3(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Khushali Desai
For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dalla, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.12.2025Pronounced: 31.12.2025

Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by revenue arises out of order dated 20/06/2025 passed by NFAC - New Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice under Section 148 dated July 31, 2022, for A.Y. 2017-18 was barred by limitation.

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating on the merits of the addition of Rs. 2,36,89, 124/ - made under Section 68 of the Income Tax. Act, 1961, and by restricting the order only to the grounds challenging t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →