M/S.U.S.ROOFS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 29.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee at the time of filing appeal has raised various grounds of appeal on merit. However, vide application dated 29.05.2019, the assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal: Additional Ground of Appeal 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Assessing officer erred in not passing the impugned order within time limit prescribed u/s 153(2) of the Act. 2. The appellant prays that impugned order passed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 153(2) of the Act be held as void and bad in law.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 29.05.2019. The additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature. No additional facts for adjudication of the additional ground of appeal are required to be brought on record. The facts relating to adjudication of the additional ground of appeal are emanating from the orders of lower authorities and the available on the material available on record. To support his contention, the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT & Others, 189 ITR 688 (SC), and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). 3. In support of the additional ground of appeal, the learned AR of the assessee submits that notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2013 was served upon the assessee on 25.03.2013 itself. In response to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed its letter dated 26.04.2013 and submitted that the assessee had filed a revised ITR and computation of income for AY 2010-11 in response to the notice under Section 148. The assessment order was passed on 27.03.2015. The assessment order passed on 27.03.2015 is hopelessly time-barred. The assessment order should have been completed on or before 31.03.20214. The assessment order is liable to be quashed. A copy of the notice under Section 148 is filed on record at page No. 207 of the paper book. The Managing Director of the assessee-company has filed his affidavit stating that the authorised representative of the assessee-company, CA Rajendra Laddha, was representing the assessee before the Income Tax authorities and, during the course of one such proceeding, Mr. Laddha accepted the notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2013, on the day itself and kept the notice in the official record. Subsequently, another notice was issued by the Income Tax Department, which was received by him (Managing Director) on 25.04.2013 and was also placed on record. The learned AR, by referring to both the notices, would submit that the time period for completion of the assessment order is to be counted from receipt of the notice on 25.03.2013 itself. 4. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that assessment was completed within time period available for relevant assessment year. On the specific submissions on behalf of assessee, with regard to the service of notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2013 on the same date, the learned CIT-DR for the revenue submits that, as per the acknowledgement on the said notice, which is stated to be that of Rajendra Laddha, the assessee failed to establish that Rajendra Laddha was authorised to receive a statutory notice. No authority letter, board resolution, power of attorney, authorisation or any other documentary evidence has been produced. The affidavit of Rajendra Laddha has also not been filed. Another notice, which bears the receipt date as 25.04.2013, was received by the Director of assessee-company. The assessee has filed a letter dated 26.04.2013 in response to the notice under Section 148, wherein it was stated that, “We have received notice under Section 148 on 28.04.2013.” Such admission constitutes the best evidence about the actual receipt of the notice. The assessment order further shows that notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2013 was duly served upon the assessee and the assessee proceeded with the assessment proceedings by filing revised computation and return of income. At no stage during the assessment proceedings, the assessee objected to the service of notice on 25.03.2013 itself. Thus, in the absence of an authority letter of Rajendra Laddha or his affidavit and in view of the admission of the assessee in the letter dated 29.04.2013 that the notice was served on 28.04.2013, Mr. Tarun Tripathy was the authorised representative of the assessee as per the assessment record. Thus, the plea of the assessee that the assessment order is barred by limitation is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. The learned CIT-DR also passed a copy of the notice dated 25.03.2013 received on 25.03.2013 itself, which bears the signature of Kamal Mangal, DCIT-10(3), Mumbai, and a similar notice with the receipt of such notice on 25.04.2013. A copy of the letter allegedly filed by the assessee on 26.04.2013, accepting the notice under Section 148 for AY 2010-11, was received on 28.04.2013.The ld CIT-DR for the revenue also filed his written submissions on the additional ground of appeal as well as on merit, which we have taken on record. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also perused the various documentary evidences and copy of notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2013. There is no dispute the case of assessee was reopened under section 147. Admittedly, notice under section 148 was issued on 25.03.2013. Further, there is no dispute that assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 27.03.2015. Parties have locked their horn on the date of service on notice, such the date of service is crucial to determine the time limit for passing the re-assessment order. As per assessee the notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2013 was received by Rajinder Laddha (RL) on behalf of assessee on 25.03.2013 itself as he was attending the office of AO in other income tax proceedings. The said notice under section 148 is duly signed by DCIT 10(3) Mumbai and bears the acknowledgement of receipt by ‘RL’ on 25.03.2013. We find that in support of such contention the Managing Director of assessee company namely Urmish M Udani has filed his affidavit deposing the facts that CA Rajendra Laddha, was representing the assessee before the Income Tax authorities and, during the course of one such proceeding, Mr. Laddha accepted the notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2013, on the day itself and kept the notice in the official record. We find that in para-2 of the assessment order, the AO recorded that in response to notice under section 148, the assessee vide its letter dated 26.04.2013 submitted that the assessee has revised the ITR & computation of income for AY 2010-11 and have shown total income of Rs. 65,44,120/-. If the notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2013 was served on the assessee either on the same date on or before 31.03.2013, the assessment should have completed on or before 31.03.2014 or if it was served after 01.04.2013, the AO could pass it upto 31.03.2015. 6. We find that the ld CIT-DR for the revenue while defending the time limit period for passing assessment order placed on record copy of notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2013, which bears running initials of issuing authority [DCIT-10(3)]. This notice also bears the signature of recipient at two place and two dates; at one place it bears the dated as 24.04.2013 which bears the overwriting of 25.03.2013 and at second place date is mentioned as 25.04.2013. We find that receipt of second notice under section 148 dated 25.03.3013 is also accepted by Managing Director of assessee in his affidavit. However, it was accepted as received on 25.04.2013. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue also filed one more copy of letter dated 26.04.2013, wherein it is mentioned that “we have received notice u/s 148 on 28.04.2013”. A careful reading of this letter reflects contradictory facts, as to how receipt of notice on 28.04.2013, can be shown to have accepted on 26.04.2013. We find that there is clear hesitation in writing date on the top of the letter dated 26.04.2013 and similar hesitation in the signature of director. Thus, instead of going further deeper inquiry, on the basis of material available on record, we can safely conclude that notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2013 was served on the assessee on 25.03.2013. The provisions of Income Tax Act do not permit the Income Tax Authorities to issue two different notices under section 148 of same date or serve it twice. The time period of passing assessment order is to be calculated from 25.03.2013. Hence, we can safely conclude that notice under section 148 was served on 25.03.2013 itself and the reassessment order passed on 27.03.2015 is barred by limitation. Hence, the assessment order is invalid. In the result, the assessee succeeded on additional ground of appeal. 7. Considering the facts that the assessee has succeeded on the legal issue, hence, adjudication on various grounds of appeal on merit have become academic. 8. In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 31.08.2026 S- S Sd/- /-SS/-SSSS Sd/-S Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated:31/08/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai