SELVARAJ SANKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(7), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1561/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2026AY 2015-1614 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA, finding sufficient cause. It also admitted an additional legal ground regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice, holding it to be barred by limitation and quashing the reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against assessment and penalty orders with a significant delay. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating on merits, refusing to condone the delay. The assessee argued the delay was due to bona fide pursuit of rectification applications.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the FAA was justifiable, and whether the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 69A,Section 271F,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.01.2026/26.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

- 2 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 2. There is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.1561/CHNY/2026. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay, explaining the reasons for the same. It is stated that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that once the appeal against the quantum assessment order had been filed, wherein both jurisdictional and merits-related grounds were raised, there was no necessity to file a separate appeal against the penalty order passed by the CIT(A). Subsequently, upon being advised by the counsel that separate appeals are required to be filed against the penalty orders, as independent orders had been passed by the CIT(A), the assessee immediately preferred the present appeal with a delay of 20 days. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The FAA held that there was a delay of 449 days / 353 days in filing the appeals before him and that no reasonable cause had been shown for condoning the same. On perusal of the order of the FAA, we note that the assessee had filed

- 3 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar petitions for condonation of delay explaining that against the assessment orders dated 21.03.2024, rectification applications had been filed within seven days, i.e., on 30.03.2024. The assessee was under the bona fide impression that the rectification applications would be considered and appropriate relief would be granted by the Assessing Officer. Since the rectification applications remained undisposed of and were still pending, the assessee ultimately filed the appeals before the FAA belatedly. However, the FAA was not convinced with the explanation offered and consequently dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA was neither willful nor deliberate, since the assessee was bona fide pursuing an alternative statutory remedy by way of rectification applications before the AO.

5.

The Ld.DR supported the orders of the FAA.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits by refusing to condone the

- 4 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar delay of 449 days / 353 days in filing the appeals before him. In our considered view, the assessee was bona fide pursuing an alternative remedy by filing rectification applications before the AO within a reasonable period. Therefore, the explanation offered by the assessee constitutes sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 449 days / 353 days in filing the appeals before the FAA.

ITA No.1560/CHNY/2026 7. At the very outset, we find that the assessee has filed a petition seeking admission of an additional legal ground. The additional ground relates to the validity of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that since the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued beyond the period of six years prescribed u/s.149 of the Act, the same is barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto is liable to be quashed. In this regard, the Ld.AR placed on record a copy of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri Sridhar Lokesh vs. ITO in W.P.No.16526 of 2022 (judgment dated 28.11.2024)

- 5 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 8. The Ld.DR was duly heard on the admission of the additional ground.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue relating to the validity of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is a pure legal issue, which does not require examination of any fresh facts, since the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act already forms part of the record. Since the issue raised goes to the very root of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO and involves a pure question of law, the same deserves to be admitted for adjudication. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), has held that a pure question of law arising from facts already available on record can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Bank reported in [2015] 230 Taxman 635. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the same on merits.

- 6 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 10. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2015- 16. The AO was in possession of information that the assessee had made time deposits aggregating to Rs.2,44,00,000/- in bank accounts. Accordingly, after obtaining approval from the competent authority, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 07.04.2022. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished details explaining time deposits to the extent of Rs.2,08,00,000/-. Since the assessee had not filed the return of income, the AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee, treated a sum of Rs.31,50,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act and also brought to tax salary income of Rs.2,88,000/- and interest income of Rs.65,744/-. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA with a delay of 449 days. The FAA dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

11.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR reiterated that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It was submitted that the notice dated 07.04.2022 having been issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-

- 7 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 16 is time barred and therefore invalid in law. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Ms.Thirumoorthy Revathy vs. ITO ITA No.3188/CHNY/2025 (order dated 27.01.2026) and Kaliyappan Arumugam vs. ITO in ITA No.3017/CHNY/2025 (order dated 04.03.2026).

12.

The Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

13.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022, which is beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16. On identical facts, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ms.Thirumoorthy Revathy vs. ITO, supra, held that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were liable to be quashed. The relevant finding of the order of the Tribunal in the case Ms.Thirumoorthy Revathy, supra, read as under:- 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In order to find out whether the notice under section 148 is time barred or not, we need to first examine the relevant provisions of the Act and the legal position as per judicial precedence. Section 149(1) of the Act contain the provisions with regard to the time limit for issue of notice

- 8 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar under section 148 of the Act. Notice has to judged according to the law existing on the date of notice issued. The relevant provisions applicable when the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued reads as under (as on 01.04.2022):- 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 period shall be

- 9 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 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

7.

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) **** 8. 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). The intent of the first proviso is that the revenue does not get the extended time of ten years where the notices were not issued within a period of six years for AYs prior to 2021-22. The said legislative intent has been clearly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). The relevant of observations of the Apex Court is extracted below “– 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

- 10 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 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. 47. **** 48. Notices have to be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April 2021, the time limits prescribed under the new regime came into force. The ordinary time limit of four years was reduced to three years. Therefore, in all situations, reassessment notices could be issued under the new regime if not more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. For example, for assessment year 2018-2019, the four year period would have expired on 31 March 2023 under the old regime. However, if the notice is issued after 1 April 2021, the three year time limit prescribed under the new regime will be applicable. The three year time limit will expire on 31 March 2022. 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. 50. to 52. *** 53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) 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 time 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

- 11 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.”

9.

From the perusal of the legislative intent of the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act and interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that Revenue cannot issue notice under section 148 for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22 if six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired on the date of issue of such notice. In the light of the above legal position we will now examine the facts in present case. The year under consideration here is AY 2015-16. For assessment year 2015-16, the time limit as per the old regime, for issue of notice for AY 2015-16 under section 148 of the Act is six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. i.e. 31.03.2022. Accordingly, the notice dated 01.04.2022 issued u/s.148 of the Act in assessee's case is beyond the time limit and not valid.

10.

The argument of the Ld.DR is that the time allowed to the assessee to respond to the notice issued under section 148A(b) i.e., from 22.03.2022 to 29.03.2022 should be excluded as per the third proviso to section 149(1). We are of the considered view, for the purpose applying the exclusion period, the notice should first survive the test of being issued either under section 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b) under the new regime. In the given case the notice under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 does not survive the test by virtue of the first proviso and therefore the question of applying the third proviso for calculating the time limit does not arise. In this regard, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sridhar Lokesh vs. ITO in WP No.16526 of 2022 (judgment dated 28.11.2024) was considering the following prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Respondent and quash the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in PAN:ADDPL2229A dated 04.04.2022 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042464779(1) for the AY 2015~16 along with the impugned notice no.1 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act in PAN:ADDPL2229A dated 23.03.2022 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1041356299(1) for the AY 2015-16 and the impugned notice No.2 under Section 148 of the Act in PAN:ADDPL2229A dated 04.04.2022 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1042466733(1) for the AY 2015-16.

- 12 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar 11. In disposing off the above prayer, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held as follows:-

“2.The issue, as on date is covered by a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. In paras 29 and 30, the Court has examined the issue in the light of the 1st and 3rd proviso to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as in force with effect from 01.04.2021. The 3rd proviso to Section 149 (1) is now the 5th proviso to Section 149 (1) with effect from 01.04.2023. 3. Although, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be more attractive, I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the above case, which had followed an earlier decision rendered in Godrej Industries Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. rendered on 28.02.2024.”

12.

In light of the aforesaid discussion and relying on the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 01.04.2022 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings based on an invalid notice is quashed and addition made therein is deleted. Since, we have adjudicated the legal ground, the grounds raised on merits is not adjudicated and is left open. It is ordered accordingly.

14.

In light of the above discussion, we hold that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such invalid notice are liable to be quashed. Since we have adjudicated the legal issue in favour of the assessee, the grounds raised on merits are left open and are not adjudicated. It is ordered accordingly.

- 13 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar

ITA No.1561/CHNY/2026

15.

The assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the AO imposed penalty u/s.271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA with a delay, which was dismissed in limine by the FAA without condoning the delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

16.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year and has not furnished any evidence to establish that the total income of the assessee was below the taxable limit. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the AO was justified in imposing penalty u/s.271F of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed u/s.271F of the Act is sustained and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

- 14 - ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/CHNY/2026 Selvaraj Sankar

17.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.1560/CHNY/2026 is partly-allowed and in ITA No. 1561/CHNY/2026 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th May,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 15th May, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.05.18 17:10:33 +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 →