VIJAYA LAKSHMI KATTA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 99/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 July 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on April 7, 2022, for assessment year 2015-16, was invalid as it was issued after the prescribed time limit of March 31, 2022. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also deemed invalid.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 21.08 lakhs under Section 69A for assessment year 2015-16, based on cash deposits. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, primarily arguing that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to being barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was valid, considering it was issued beyond the statutory time limit for the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr AR

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, विशाखापत्तनम पीठ, विशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री उदयन दास गुप्ता, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा, माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.99/Viz/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vijaya Lakshmi Katta Vs. Income Tax Officer Guntur Ward-2(1) Guntur PAN : DRSPK2150P (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

निर्धाऩिती द्वधिध/ Shri Chundru Sudheer, Assessee represented by: Advocate िधजस्वt द्वधिध/ Revenue represented by: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr AR

सुिवधई की तधिीख/ 15.06.2026 Date of conclusion of hearing: घोषणध की तधिीख/ 10.07.2026 Date of pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1083174866(1) dated 01.12.2025, arising out of order

ITA 99/Viz/2026 Vijaya Lakshmi Katta passed by the Ld.AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 06.03.2024 for the A.Y.2015-16.

2.

In the above cited appeal, certain cash deposits were added by the Ld.AO while completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. There was no response from the appellant for the notices issued u/s 148 and hence, the Ld.AO proceeded with the assessment proceedings and issued a questionnaire with regard to cash deposits made by the appellant into his savings bank account and term deposits. The appellant had participated in the proceedings and gave certain clarifications based on the questionnaire issued by the Ld.AO. Finally an addition of Rs.21.08 lakhs was made u/s 69A of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, an appeal was preferred before the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, contesting the addition made by the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), stating that the addition is erroneous. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the arguments of the assessee stating that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. In other words, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO.

4.

The appellant has escalated the issue to the ITAT and the main ground of appeal taken before ITAT is that the notice issued u/s 148 was invalid as barred by limitation. For the A.Y.2015-16, the outer 2

ITA 99/Viz/2026 Vijaya Lakshmi Katta time limit under the old reassessment regime is six years from the end of the assessment year i.e. upto 31.03.2022. Whereas in this case, the Ld.AO issued notice u/s 148 on 07.04.2022, i.e., after 31.03.2022 and hence the notice is barred by limitation. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant has stated that this issue relating to A.Y.2015-16 was decided in favour of the assessee and against Revenue in several decisions of this Tribunal and other Tribunals. The Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Penugonda Yagnasree Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.722/Viz/2025 dated 14.05.2026, where the coordinate Bench held that notice issued after 31.03.2022 is barred by limitation and the consequent reassessment cannot survive.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR has stated that the assessee is a non filer and despite issuance of several notices, the assessee neither responded nor filed return of income for the impugned A.Y.2015-16 to verify the source of cash deposits. It was argued that as per the information available on record, the total cash deposits and term deposits exceeded Rs.50 lakhs and hence, the notice satisfied the conditions laid down u/s 149(b) of the Act and the Ld.AO has followed due procedure and opportunity of being heard is also given as per section 148A(b) of the Act. This notice was issued after obtaining approval of the competent authority and in the absence of any

ITA 99/Viz/2026 Vijaya Lakshmi Katta response from the appellant, the Ld.AO presumed that there is no explanation from the appellant to offer nor he had any objection for the proposed issuance of notice u/s 148. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 07.04.2022. Finally, after taking into consideration, the reply filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, an amount of Rs.21.08 lakhs was added u/s 69A of the Act. In view of all these facts and circumstances, the Ld.AO is correct in making addition and hence, notice issue du/s 148 is also valid. Finally, the Ld.DR concluded stating that, the additions made by the Ld.AO may be sustained.

6.

Heard rival submissions. After perusal of the assessment order, Ld.CIT(A) order and grounds of appeal and taking into consideration the arguments of both the parties, the Bench decides to adjudicate at the initial stage, the issue relating to the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation or not. Apparently, notice u/s 148 for the A.Y.2015-16 had to be issued before 31.03.2022 and in the impugned case, the same was issued on 07.04.2022 and there is no dispute on this fact. Since the notice was issued after 31.03.2022, the notice is held invalid as barred by limitation. In this regard, the Bench decided to follow the decision of coordinate Bench in the case of Penugonda Yagnasree Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra). Similar decisions were rendered by the coordinate Bench of Visakhapatnam in the case of

ITA 99/Viz/2026 Vijaya Lakshmi Katta Gundu Satyanarayana Vs. ITO in ITA No.150/Viz/2026 dated 19.06.2026 and Shaik Shabbir Ahmad in ITA No.118/Viz/2026 dated 19.06.2026. A detailed order was passed in the case of Penugonda Yagnasree Vs. Income Tax Officer and Gundu Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra), where, it was held that as far as A.Y.2015- 16 is concerned, Revenue itself had conceded before Hon’ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they do not fall for within the period prescribed under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”). Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Vs. DCIT dated 17.11.2025 in WP No.25121/2024 also held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act after six years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation. Therefore, the limitation provided u/s 149(1)(b) read with proviso to the said section makes it clear that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year. Respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Vs. DCIT (supra) and the decisions of coordinate Benches, in this case also, the Bench decides to hold that the notice issued u/s 148 as invalid and hence all the consequent proceedings are also invalid. Since the notice itself is held as invalid, other grounds of appeal

ITA 99/Viz/2026 Vijaya Lakshmi Katta including the grounds of appeal relating to merits are not being adjudicated.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962 by placing the details on the notice board on 10th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (उदयन दास गुप्ता) (ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam dated 10.07.2026. L.Rama/Sr.PS

ITA 99/Viz/2026 Vijaya Lakshmi Katta

Copy to: SMT.VIJAYA LAKSHMI KATTA, 8-20-22/A SITA RAM NAGAR 4TH LINE 1 KAKANI ROAD, GUNTUR-522001, ANDHRA PRADESH

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2 LAKSHMIPURAM MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR-522006, ANDHRA PRADESH

3 THE PCIT, GUNTUR 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →