RAMAMOORTHY SRINIVASAN CHANDILYA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -12(1), HYDERABAD

आदेश / ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 18.06.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. There is a delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee.

“4. We find that the assessee's jurisdictional Assessing Officer is located at Hyderabad. In terms of Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, read with Notification No.F.No.63-AD(AT/97), dated 16.09.1997, the jurisdiction of the Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals ought to have been filed before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench and not before the ITAT, Chennai Bench. This rule is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 289 Taxmann 150 (SC). In view of the above, the present appeal filed before the ITAT, Chennai Bench are held to be not maintainable and are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, 3 months liberty is granted to the assessee to file fresh appeal before the ITAT from the receipt of this order, Hyderabad Bench along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.”

5.1. Thus, the Chennai Benches of this Tribunal has held that the appeal ought to have been filed before the Hyderabad Benches of the ITAT and not before the Chennai Benches and accordingly, given a liberty to the assessee to file appeal before the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal within a period of three months. The present appeal was filed by the assessee on 09.12.2025 which is within three months’ time allowed by the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal and therefore, the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal Is explained by the assessee being the time consumed in pursuing the remedy before Chennai Benches of the Tribunal. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a ‘sufficient reason’ for delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned.

“I was not aware that the assessment was reopened and also unaware of the of the reopening notices and subsequent assessment proceedings. I have not received any communication and there was no alert message. The speed post communication was also sent to the Chennai address which was sold about 10 years ago and which is the present subject matter. My profile in the portal exhibits my present address to which there was no communication at all. Only recently I received a notice for penalty to my present mail id. No sooner I received the mail and became aware of the developments with regard to assessment and demand I swung into action to file the present appeal even though the assessment order dated 20-03-2024 might have been hosted in March 2024 itself. If it is considered that there is a delay in filing the present appeal the reason for such delay is neither willful nor wanton. It is also to be noted that I would not gain anything by committing delay in filing the present appeal. My genuinity can be fortified by the fact that I have responded to our earlier two notices in time. I am a law abiding citizen and interested in co-operating with the Government. The reason for delay in filing is beyond my control. Hence I hereby pray for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. If the delay is not condoned I would be put into financial stress with regard to transactions such as incorrect sale value of Rs.8,29,00,000. I am a senior citizen of the age of 74. This is also one of the reasons for becoming unaware of the notices and assessment. Hence I pray you once again to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on the grounds raised.”

10.1. Thus, the assessee has explained the reason that the assessee had not received any communication regarding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and only when the assessee received the penalty notice, the assessee came to know about the order passed by the Assessing Officer and immediately took steps for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Considering the reasons explained by the assessee as well as the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen of more than 74 years old, we take a lenient view to consider the ‘sufficient cause’ for delay of 132 days and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to ITAT Tax Bar Association, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of this order.

“Considering the above facts and as per the newly inserted provision of section 148A of the Act, 1961, approval from the specified authority (PCCIT, AP & Telangana, vide Reference No. 100000029618752 dated 07/04/2022) was obtained to issue show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Consequent upon the approval from the specified authority, show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, was issued to the assessee informing him regarding the escapement of income as mentioned above and as to why a notice u/s.148 should not be issued in his case. Accordingly, the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, was passed on 07/04/2022. Subsequently, the notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 07/04/2022 through the ITBA portal of the Department. The assessee firm was required to file return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 within 30 days. In response to the notice u/s.148, the assessee has failed to submit its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 till date.”

16.1. Thus, it is clear that the notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 07.04.2022 which is beyond the period of six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2015-2016 and therefore, as per the proviso to sec.149(1)(b) of the Act the said notice is not valid being barred by limitation. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.758 /Hyd./2025, dated 17.04.2026

in Para nos.9 to 9.4 as under: “9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the case in hand, the Assessing Officer has issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act on 19.03.2022 as under: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.1. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed an Order u/sec.148A(d) of the Act on 15.04.2022 and issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 15.04.2022 as under: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.2. Thus, the notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 15.04.2022 which is undisputedly beyond the period of 06 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2015-2016. As per the unamended provisions of sec.148 of the Act, the notice u/sec.148 of the Act could be issued within the period of 06 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. However, as per the amended provisions for reopening u/sec.148A and 148 r.w.s.149 of the Act, the limitation for reopening of the assessment has been reduced from 06 years to 03 years in cases where the income which is escaped assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs; but the limitation for reopening of the assessment is increased from 06 years to 10 years in the cases where the amount of income escaped assessment is Rs.50 lakhs or more. The learned DR has submitted that as per the new provision of reopening u/sec.148A and 149 of the Act the limitation available to the Assessing Officer is 10 years from the end of the assessment year in the cases where the income escaped assessment is Rs.50 lakhs or more. In the case of the assessee, the income escaped assessment was more than Rs.50 lakhs and therefore, the 1st proviso to sec.149(1) would not apply to the case of the assessee. This contention of the learned DR is not acceptable in view of the plain language of the proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act which has been considered and interpreted by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Telangana High Court in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra) in Para nos.10 to 21 as under:

“10. This, we say so for the following reasons: In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the position of law stands clear as regards the operation of amended Section 149(1) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 49 and 53 thereof are extracted hereunder:

“49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1xb) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the

(a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the case falls under clause (b), (b) if three years, that not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment yes unless the Assessing Officer has it his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of- (i) an asset (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event of occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, Which has escaped assessment amounts to or in likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more; Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1 day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C. as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021; Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order er injunction of any court, shall be excluded:

Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the Immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A does not exceed seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.

notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019 Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assessees.”

“53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus (1) Section 140(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (4) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the tune limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.”

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or re-computation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Explanation for the removal of doubt, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1 day of April, 2012. ---------------- 12. Apparently, the fifth and sixth provisos of the amended Section 149 of the Act extracted hereinabove provide for excluding certain periods while computing the period of limitation as per the amended Section. It prescribes the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per the show cause notice under clause (b) of Section 148 of the Act or the period during which the proceeding under Section 148A of the Act is stayed shall be excluded. The sixth proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act also deals with exclusion of the period referred to in the fifth proviso i.e., the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act if it does not exceed seven days. In that event, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended. Accordingly, both the fifth and sixth provisos in the first place do not amount to clarification of the first proviso. These two provisos qualify the substantive amended Section 149 of the Act and do not relate to the un-amended Section 149 of the Act for which the first proviso takes care of. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the time spent from the issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act up to the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of the fifth and sixth provisos stands excluded for reckoning the limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is not worth acceptance. Section 148A of the Act lays down the procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act whereas Section 149 of the Act prescribes strict time limit within which notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued in the prescribed circumstances. The Revenue is therefore obliged to adhere to the timeline prescribed under Section 149 of the Act for issuance of such notice and undertake the procedure before issuance of notice under Section 148A of the Act.

“15. The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present case is 31st July 2022, by which time the Finance Act, 2021 is already on the statute and in terms thereof, no notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15 could be issued on or after" April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proviso could not save such notices The fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the time limit of three years and ten years in Section 149(1) of the Act are breached. 16. The sixth proviso to Section 149 of the Act has no impact as it only provides a situation where after exclusion of the time period referred to in the fifth proviso, the time available with the Assessing Officer for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than 7 days, then the remaining time frame shall be extended to 7 days and limitation also stands extended by 7 days”

"12. In this case, as it pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18, six years period would have expired on 31 March 2024 whereas notice under Section 148 of the Act itself came to be issued on 1 May 2024. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for Revenue, made an attempt to argue that fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would save the period of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. We are afraid we do not agree with him. Same argument was raised in Hexaware Technologies Lid (supra) and was rejected. The Court held, with respect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act ie, three years or ten years, as the case may be. The Court also held that fifth and sixth provisos extend limitation for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, first proviso is an exception to the period of limitation and provides for a restriction on the notices under Section 148 of the Act being issued for assessment years up to 2021-22 (in thes case, it is Assessment Year 2017-18) beyond a certain date. Therefore, the way the section would operate, is to first decide whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Net is within the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(2 (b) of the Act. To decide whether the notice is within the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, the extension of time as prescribed in fifth and/or sixth proviso would be considered. The Court further held once, the notice is otherwise within the period of limitation. thereafter one has to see whether the said limit is within the prescribed restriction provided in first proviso or not. If the netice is beyond the restriction period, the notice is invalid, and the fifth and/or the sixth proviso cannot apply at this stage to extend the period of restriction as per first proviso. Hence, if a notice is not within the time prescribed under first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, then such period cannot be extended by fifth or sixth proviso. In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Court had relied upon another judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Lid. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2024) 160 tasmann.com 13 (Bombay)/(2024) 338 CTR (Bom) 25, which was also authored by one of us (the Chief Justice), where paragraph No.15 reads as under:

“15 The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present case is 31" July 2022, by which time the Finance Act, 2021 is already on the statute and in terms thereof, no notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15 could be issued on or after 1" April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proviso could not save such notices. The fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the time limit of three years and ten years in Section 149(1) of the Act are breached." 15. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision rendered by Patna High Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar (supra) is distinguishable as it relates to the Assessment Year 2020-21 in respect of which the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 28.03.2024. The petitioner therein had assailed the notice on the ground that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to undertake the assessment for the Assessment Year 2020-21 after 31.03.2024 with reference to the second notice issued on 22.04.2024 as it was beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act. In the aforesaid facts, the learned Court held that the combined reading of the fifth and sixth provisos meant that the first notice dated 28.03.2024 was issued well within the time limit stipulated. Therefore, the Assessment Officer has jurisdiction.

“5.1. The assessee requested that the claim of the assessee is found to be in order towards belated payments of ESVEPF amounting to Rs.6,35,949, However, in recent judgement passed by Apex court in the case of Mis Checkmate Services (P) Ltd Vs CIT (791 SC 2022) hell that it is an essential condition for the deduction of employees contribution that such amounts are deposited on or before the due dates defined by the respective statues Therefore contention of the assessee is not in order. 5.2. Further, the assessee furnished partial bills/vouchers towards additions made to fixed assets for the Y 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18. Since the volumes of the information furnished the same needs to be verified further with third party confirmations, Therefore, the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 78,26,412 is still stand unexplained with proper evidence."

"4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed serious error in observing and holding that the notice under section 154 was invalid as the same was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed/provided under section 154(7) of the Act. It is required to be noted that the proceedings under section 154 of the Act were not the subject-matter before the High Court. Nothing was on record that, in fact, the notice under section 154 of the Act was withdrawn on the ground that the same was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 154(7) of the Act. In the absence of any specific order of withdrawal of the proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the proceedings initiated under section 154 of the Act can be said to have been pending. 5. In that view of the matter, during the pendency of the proceedings under section 154 of the Act, it was not permissible on the part of the Revenue to initiate the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act pending the proceedings under section 154 of the Act. The High Court has erred in presuming and observing that the proceedings under section 154 were invalid because the same were beyond the period of limitation." 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the second issue raised by the petitioner is also required to be answered in the affirmative.

“17. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant notice issued by the A.O. under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.04.2022 in the light of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act states that, no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of Section 149 of the Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. 18. In the present case, the assessment year involved is 2015- 16 and as per the unamended provisions of Section 149, if the income escaped assessment is more than Rs. 1 lakh, then the assessment can be reopened up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, for the assessment year 2015-16, the assessment could have been reopened on or before 31.03.2022. Since the time limit available for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, as per the old regime of reassessment, was up to 31.03.2022, in our considered view, the A.O. cannot issue reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2022. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the A.O. has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 09.04.2022, which is beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the notice issued by the A.O. under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.04.2022 is barred by limitation in view of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and consequently the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. dated 28.11.2023 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 19. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited Vs. D.C.I.T. (supra). A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in the case of A.C.I.T. Vs. Manish Financial in ITA No. 5055/Mum/2024 (supra), wherein the coordinate Bench, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, held as under: "6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case, the AO issued the original notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 and consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to the un-amended provisions of section 149(1) as has been confirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under- 19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (c)**** (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012- 2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 7. This issue of notice under section 148 issued for 2015-16 being time barred is considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it is held that *****For the A.Y.2015-16, the Revenue itself has contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the notices issued on or after 01/04/2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. Here notice w/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015-16 has been issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by limitation under the new provision of Section 149(1) and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly, all the notices are quashed being barred by limitation on the reasons given above and we are not going on the reasons given by the Id. CIT (A) for quashing the notice." 8. A combined reading of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of coordinate bench makes it clear that the test for checking the validity of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for AYs 2021-22 or prior years is whether the period of six years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in that case the notice under section 148 becomes invalid. These observations also makes it clear that the time limit of ten years as per the amended provisions of section 149(1)(b) can be applied only prospectively. In assessee's case when we apply this test for AY 2015-16, the period of six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 is invalid since it is barred by limitation. Accordingly the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time barred the other legal contentions raised by the assessee in the CO have become academic not warranting any adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed. 10. We have quashed the order of re-assessment for AY 2015- 16 considering the legal contentions raised by the assessee in the C.O. therefore the appeals of the revenue for AY 2015-16 contending the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.” 20. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, we hold that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.04.2022 is barred by limitation and therefore the consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 147 r.w.s. Section 144 of the Act dated 28.11.2023 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O.

9.4. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the binding precedent of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 15.04.2022 is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be quashed. We Order accordingly. Since we have quashed the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act being invalid which also vitiates the re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes infructuous.”

16.2. Thus, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT, AP & PCCIT, Hyderabad (supra) as well as this Tribunal in case of Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad (supra) has held that the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act after expiry of 06 years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Sai Kumar Mateti [2026] 187 taxmann.com 225 (SC) has re-affirmed this position regarding the validity of the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act after expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation in Para nos.3 to 7 as under:

“3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh (2026) 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters.

16.3. Accordingly, by following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in case of Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad (supra) and Judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anr. (supra) as well as Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Sai Kumar Mateti (supra), the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 is invalid being barred by limitation and consequently vitiates the re-assessment order.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANJUNATHA G VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 05th day of August, 2026 VBP Copy to: RAMAMOORTHY SRINIVASAN CHANDILYA, C/O B. SURESH, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 1 NO. 25/13, AKBAR SAHIB STREET, TRIPLICANE,, CHENNAI-600005, TAMIL NADU 2 ITO, WARD -12(1), HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA 3 THE PR. CIT, HYDERABAD. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, HYDERABAD 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.08.05 I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD RAO 10:35:33 +05'30'