ESAAR INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the issue of limitation and several other grounds were not adequately addressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and the issue of limitation.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed late. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 66,46,960/- on account of alleged penny stock transactions, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of the reassessment proceedings, including the notice issued under Section 148, and the correctness of the addition made under Section 68. The Tribunal also considered the issue of limitation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 68,Section 250,Section 151A,Section 10(38),Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 2990/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 Esaar India Ltd. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCE0478J Appearances: Assessee represented by : S.S. Gupta, FCA. Department represented by : Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 05.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 25.08.2025. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 38 days. The assessee has filed a petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay of 45 days explaining the reasons that the assessee company was dependent on its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Dipesh Mistry, who was looking after the taxation matters, and due to his heavy professional workload and inadvertent oversight while attending to multiple statutory compliances, he forgot to take action to file the appeal before the ITAT within the prescribed time limit, with the assessee remaining unaware of the non-filing until a recovery notice dated
Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 relate to the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act as a consequence of which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. We shall first take up Ground No. 4 which relates to the notice u/s 148 of the Act being issued beyond the limitation provided u/s 149 of the Act. The assessee has made written submission stating that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, which is reproduced as under:
• “Original Notice u/s. 148 issued on 23.06.2021. • As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal [444 ITR 1] the said notices issued between April 1, 2021 upto June 30, 2021 are to be treated as notices issued u/s. 148A(b). • As per the said decision dated 04-05-2022, the AO shall within 30 days provide to assessee the information and material relied upon by the Department i.e. the department has to furnish the same by June 3, 2022. • In the facts of the assessee's case these information have been provided to the assessee on 26-05-2022. • As per the said decision dated 04-05-2022, the assessee could reply to the notices within 2 weeks thereafter i.e. by 09-06-2022 (26-05-2022+ 14 days). • In the facts of the assessee's case the assessee furnished its reply on 09-06-2022. • Surviving period available to the Department as per TOLA is 7 days (i.e. 23-06-2021 to 30-06-2021). • Thus, the Ld. AO could issue notice u/s. 148 within 7 days of the date of furnishing (09-06-2022) of reply by the assessee i.e. latest by 16-06- 2022 (09-06-2022 + 7 days). • In the facts of the assessee's case the notice u/s. 148 has been issued on 26-07-2022. • As such it is submitted that the said notice is barred by limitation.” 7. The Ld. DR could not controvert this fact. However, he relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 5 Nov 2026
- Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Kallu Cable vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Service TaxUttarakhand · 5 Nov 2026