Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee also filed an application to raise an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of the reopening notice.
Held
The Tribunal allowed the application for the additional ground of appeal, holding that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation and lacked proper approval. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice for reopening the assessment was issued within the period of limitation and with the required approval, and if not, whether it should be quashed.
Sections Cited
250, 149(1)(a), 151(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 11.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18.
Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking permission to raise additional ground of appeal.
3. From the contents of the application I noticed that assessee has raised legal ground thereby challenging the ground of validity of the noticed issued for reopening of the Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel Mumbai. assessment as the same has been issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(1)(a) of the Act and the approval has not been sought from the appropriate authority specified u/s 151(ii) of the Act. Since this ground now raised by the assessee is legal in question and goes to the roots of the case and no separate documents or verification is required at this stage to adjudicate the said ground. Therefore, while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC V/s. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) . I allow the application for raising additional ground and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits.
4. Since the assessee has raised legal ground thereby challenging the validity of notice in question therefore I have decided to take this issue firstly as it goes to the roots of the case.
At the very outset it is an admitted fact that the alleged income in the present case is of Rs. 36,03,504/- i.e less than Rs. 50 lakhs therefore as per provisions of Sec. 149(1)(a) of the Act no notice for reopening be issued after the lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year if the income escapement is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In the present case the facts are not disputed or controverter. Thus on the very first day the notice issued by the revenue dated 23.07.2022 is barred by limitation. Therefore taking in to consideration the decision referred Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel Mumbai. before me of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs. ITO in Writ Petition No. 271 of 2023 and considering the facts of the case, I quash the notice dated 23.07.2022 as the same is barred by limitation, thus allow this ground of appeal.
6. Since I have allowed Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and quashed the notice therefore consequential assessment order passed in the present case also stands quashed. Other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders as to cost.