OM WATI,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER / NFASC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3431/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2016-174 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 under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were time-barred by 17 days. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the order under Section 148A(d) was quashed as barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was later reopened due to a cash deposit. The Assessing Officer made an addition, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued within the prescribed time limits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Agarwal and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal
Hearing: 14/05/2026Pronounced: 17/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFOREMS. MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3431/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17) Om Wati, Assessing Officer, D-243, Prashant Vihar, NFAC New Delhi-110085. Vs. PAN-AAFPW5204P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Rahul Agarwal and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Advs. (VC) Department by ShriManoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement 17/07/2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment order dated 24.01.2023 passed under Section147 r.w.s.144Bof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case is this that the return of income was filed under Section 139(1) of the Act on 02.08.2016 by the Assessee

2 ITA No.3431/Del/2026 Om Wati vs. ITO

declaring income at Rs.3,53,210/- which was subsequently reopened on

account of cash deposit of Rs.11,05,000/-, in a SB account in the year

under consideration by issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act

dated 21.07.2022 which was finalized upon making addition of

Rs.6,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee further confirmed by the First

Appellate Authority. Hence the instant appeal before us.

3.

The issue before us is that the notice under Section 148 of the Act

and the Order under Section 148A(d) was time barred for 17days in

view of the following facts:

3 ITA No.3431/Del/2026 Om Wati vs. ITO

4.

Above such facts have notbeen able to be controverted by the Ld.

DR. In fact the issue is found to be squarely covered by the Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal,

reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2693. In that matter, in view of the

order under Section 148A(d) is found to be barred by limitation as per

provision of Section 149(1) of the Act, the impugned order under Section

148A(d) of the Act was quashed as barred by limitation. Thus,

respectfully relying upon the above Judgment, the order issued under

Section 148A (d) of the Act before us, on the identical facts and

circumstances of the matter as barred by limitation is, thus, quashed.

Consequently the assessment order becomes void ab initio and therefore,

quashed.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.07.2026. Sd/- /- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:17.07.2026 *PK/R.N, Sr. Ps*

4 ITA No.3431/Del/2026 Om Wati vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →