MAHARASHTRA FOODS PROCESSING AND COLD STORAGE,MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5784/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 August 2026AY 2015-164 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 issued under Section 148 was time-barred as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lacs and the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a) had expired. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2014-15. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on March 20, 2024. The assessee contended that these proceedings were barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was barred by limitation, considering the amount of escaped income and the relevant provisions of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E’’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY&

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. & Ms. Chetna Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Dr. Rajinder Kaur, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 10.8.2026Pronounced: 14.8.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E’’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 5783/Del/2026 (AY 2014-15) & ITA NO. 5784/Del/2026 (AY 2015-16)

M/S MAHARASHTRA FOODS PROCESSING VS. DCIT, CC-26, DELHI R.NO. 323, 3RD & COLD STORAGE, SOMVAR PETH, BARAMATI ROAD, FLOOR, PHATLTAN, PHATLAN S.O., SATARA, E-2, ARA CENTRE, MAHARASHTRA, SATARA-415523 JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI – 55 (PAN: AAUFM4333Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. & Ms. Chetna Jain, Adv. Respondent by: Dr. Rajinder Kaur, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 10.8.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.8.2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals by the assessee are emanating from the respective orders

of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-29), New Delhi relating to

assessment years 2017-18. Since common issues have been raised in both the

appeals, thus, we are dealing with the facts of Assessment year 2014-15 as a

lead case by passing a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 16 Grounds of Appeal, but Ld. AR

has only argued the following Ground no. 2 which is legal in nature:-

“2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by disregarding the facts that the

impugned proceedings are barred by limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Act thus rendering the entire proceedings and consequential additions unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed/deleted.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income

u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15 on

31.3.2015 declaring total income NIL. Thereafter, assessment u/s. 147 of the

Act has been completed on 21.03.2025 at assessed income of Rs. 34,77,060/-

after making addition of Rs. 34,77,056 u/s. 69C of the Act. Against the same,

assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in

appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the

limitation proceedings are barred by limitation and thus void ab initio. It was

submitted that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 20.03.2024 for AY

2014-15 & 2015-16. It was further contended that alleged income escaped

assessment is only Rs. 34,77,056/- for AY 2014-15 & Rs. 49,79,231/- for Ay

2015-16 which is less than Rs. 50 lacs, which falls within the three year time

limit prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the Act, because as per the

provisions of Section 149(1)(b) (as amended by Finance Act, 2021), the

permissible time limit for issuance of notice for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16

has been expired. As per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024), it has

been clarified that if the statutory period of three years from the end of the

relevant assessment year was to expire within 20.03.2020 to 30.06.2021, then

such notices issued under the old regime during that period shall be treated as

valid if reissued under the new regime within the “surviving time”.

Accordingly, in the present case, since the income escaped assessment is less

than Rs. 50 lacs, the period of three years from the end of AY 2014-15 &

2015-16 has been expired, hence, the case squarely falls within the category

governed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of UOI vs.

Rajeev Bansal (supra). Since the notice under section 148 was issued only on

20.03.2024 is time-barred and therefore invalid and thus the assessment orders

deserves to be annulled.

5.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. we find

considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that notice u/s. 148 of

the Act was issued on 20.3.2024 for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16, relying on the

relaxation under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of

Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and the alleged income escaped

assessment is only Rs. 34,77,056 & Rs. 49,79,231/- for AY 2014-15 & AY

2015-16 respectively which is less than Rs. 50 lacs, thus, falls within the three

year time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, in

the present case, since the income escaped assessment is less than Rs. 50 lacs,

hence, the case squarely falls within the category governed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court’s decision in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra).

Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as

aforesaid, we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 20-03-2024 is

time barred by limitation and thus invalid and therefore, the same is quashed

and accordingly, consequent reassessment also stand quashed. Accordingly

the legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed in both the appeals.

7.

Since we have decided the legal ground in favour of the assessee in both

the appeals, the other grounds have become academic, hence, need not be

adjudicated.

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(KRINWANT SAHAY) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBhatnaggar

Date: 14-8-2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →