GURIJALA JAGADESWARA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2013- 14. As per the information available on record and in view of the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, the A.O. observed that the assessee had received contract receipts aggregating to Rs.13,70,93,822/- from M/s. GVPR Engineers Ltd., as per TDS return filed under section 194C of the Act, during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30.07.2022 was issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the A.O. issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act,

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 586 days. The assessee explained that the delay in filing the appeal occurred on account of his ill-health and deteriorating medical condition and requested that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. However, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, observed that except making a general statement regarding illness, the assessee had failed to furnish any supporting documentary evidence, including medical records, to

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A., submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 586 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the petition for condonation of delay, particularly when the assessee had raised a legal issue going to the very root of the jurisdiction of the

The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the A.O. had passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.07.2022 and thereafter issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30.07.2022. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 30.07.2022 is barred by limitation as the period of six years expired on 31.03.2020. The learned counsel further submitted that, though proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated, the final notice under section 148 of the Act admittedly came to be issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under the unamended provisions of section 149 of the Act, and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anr. dated 17.11.2025 in WP.No.25121/2024 and submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the limitation for issuing notice u/sec.148 of the Act for the assessment year ending before

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Ms. T. Mythili, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that, the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Senior A.R. further submitted that, after amendment of the provisions relating to reopening of assessment with effect from 01.04.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act has been extended up to ten years in cases where income escaping assessment exceeds Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is within the time prescribed under law. The learned Senior A.R. further submitted that, the proviso to section 149(1) of the Act, is

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. Before adverting to the legal issue relating to validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act, we shall first deal with the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There is a delay of 586 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has explained that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act, we are of the considered view that, the delay deserves

Having disposed of the issue relating to condonation of delay, we now proceed to examine the legal issue regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. We find that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the A.O. on 30.07.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14, which is beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per the unamended provisions of section 149 of the Act, the notice under section 148 of the Act, could have been issued within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and accordingly, the limitation expired on 31.03.2020.

We further find that, though as per the amended provisions of section 149 of the Act, the limitation for reopening of assessment has been extended up to ten years in cases where income escaping assessment exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-, however, the first proviso to section 149 clearly provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the

We also find that, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Telangana High Court in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra) has considered an identical issue and held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act after expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation even though the proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated within the limitation period. Further, similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Peda Subbarao Unnam vs. ITO (supra), wherein it has been held that once the limitation under the old regime had expired, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under the new regime is invalid.

We further find that, the coordinate bench of the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, in the case of V. Rajasekhar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad in ITA Nos.2422 & 2423/Hyd./2025, order dated 03.07.2026, while considering the issue relating to limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra), the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and various other judicial precedents, held that the notice issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the unamended provisions of section 149 of the Act is barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 30.07.2022, in the present case is barred by limitation.

In the present case, the A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.06.2021 and as per the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the extended limit for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was upto

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.