SUB MAJOR SUB BHADAURIA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD, 1(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022 was barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, followed by a reply from the assessee. Subsequently, an order under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148 were issued.
What were the issues?
The key issue was whether the notice for reassessment was issued within the period of limitation, considering the impact of Supreme Court judgments on the procedural timelines for reopening assessments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC
Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2015-16/10269489 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC (Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal.
At the very outset, we notice that assessee has raised as many as 06 grounds under this second appeal. Ld AR has submitted that according to the legal ground no. 1 & 2, the assumption of juri iction for reassessment u/s 147/148 of the Act is barred by limitation in view of law laid down by Hon’ble
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.
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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026