MOHAMMED HANEEF MANSOOR,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MANGALURU

ITA 576/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 August 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and also violated Section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not declare capital gains, leading to e-assessment proceedings. He failed to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were barred by limitation and whether the notice issued violated Section 151(ii) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 23/07/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 19/09/2016. The case of the assessee was selected for e-a

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 →