MOHAMED ABDUL KADAR MUMTAJ,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 22 (1) TAMBARAM, WEST TAMBARAM,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1259/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2026AY 2015-168 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16, dated 04.04.2022, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 1,55,38,500/- for unexplained money. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, considering the amendments and Supreme Court judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Mr. E. Elango, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 08.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O noticed that there are substantial financial transitions in the bank

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 2 -:

account of the assessee. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 04.04.2022 after passing the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The A.O in response to a notice u/s. 148 of the Act filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 8,55,585/-. The A.O called on the file various details pertaining to the cash deposit and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the A.O completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 1,55,38,500/- towards unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the A.O stating that the assessee has not furnished any evidences explaining the source for the cash deposits. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

The assessee raised an addition ground contending the legal issue that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 04.04.2022 is barred by limitation. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require investigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the additional grounds. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that if the legal contentions raised with regard to the notice u/s.148 of the Act being barred by limitation (additional ground) is considered and adjudicated in favour of the assessee then the other grounds would become academic. Accordingly, we proceed with adjudicate the ground raised with regard to the notice u/s. 148 being barred by limitation.

4.

The contention of the Ld. AR at the outset is that the notice u/s. 148 issued on 04.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is beyond the time limit of six years

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 3 -:

and therefore 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 [2024] (SCC online 754). The ld AR further submitted that the coordinate bench has been consistently holding that the notice u/s.148 issued beyond six years is not valid by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly it was argued that the issue is covered by the judicial precedence.

5.

The ld DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is misquoted and that the decision did not qualify any notice on limitation only on procedure. The Ld DR further argued that if the income escaping assessment is more than Rs.50 lakhs then the time limit as per the new regime of reassessment would apply.

6.

We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We will first look at the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) with regard to validity of notices issued for AY 2015-16 issued under the old regime – 19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e)**** (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

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 4 -:

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.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by Revenue in the case of ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 57209/2024, dated 04.04.2025 held that impugned issued does not survive for further consideration. While holding so, Hon'ble Court noted in para 5 as under: "5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned."

8.

The above view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. vs. CBDT[2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC) by stating as under; "5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021".

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 5 -:

9.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 04.05.2026 in the case of ITO vs. Shri Sai Kumar Mateti (Civil Appeal No.8682 of 2024) has once again reiterated the above stand by holding that:

4.

The instant cases were segregated through the above-mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. 6. However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly. 7. Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not pertain to Assessment Year 2015- 16, then all the issues shall be resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026.

10.

Therefore in our considered view, the issue of validity of notice u/s.148 issued after 31.03.2022 is no longer res integra and accordingly unable to appreciate the arguments of the ld DR. Section 149(1) of the Act contain the provisions with regard to the time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and the relevant provisions applicable for the year under consideration read as under –

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 6 -:

149 - Time limit for notice. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (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, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in 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 or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is 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 1st 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 further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 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 or 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 is less than seven days, such remaining

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 7 -:

period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151

11.

The time limits for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act were amended as above w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Prior to the amendment the relevant provisions of section 149(1) of the Act read as under – 149 - Time limit for notice. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) **** Explanation.—In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.

(2) & (3) ****

12.

The time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act was revised with effect from 01.04.2021 and the legislature in order to make the amendment prospective introduced the first proviso to section 149(1). In view of above discussion both on facts and law including the judicial precedence, we hold that notice for A.Y. 2015-16 issued on 04.04.2022 u/s 148 of the new regime is barred by limitation. The resulting impugned reassessment

ITA No.1259/Chny/2026 Mohamed Abdul Kadar Mumtaj :- 8 -:

proceedings as well as the impugned reassessment order are therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed.

13.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 15th day of June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग"र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 15th June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S

आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.06.19 NARESH 10:32:20 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →