SHAHARAA TEX,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1796/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2026AY 2015-165 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 issued under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the specified time limit, making the reassessment invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order for AY 2015-16. The primary contention was that the notice for reassessment under Section 148 was barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव#ने% रिव, �ाियक सद के सम& । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1796/Chny/2026 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shaharaa Tex, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 32, Senguthapuram, Ward-1, Karur – 639 001. Karur – 639 002. [PAN: AAQFS-4367-Q] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate ,-थ+ की ओर से/Respondent by Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2015-16.

2.

The Ld.AR, Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate, drew our attention to the ground nos. 5 to 7 and argued that the reopening is barred by limitation for Assessment Year 2015-16 and prayed to take up the ground nos.5 to 7 as preliminary issue as it goes to the root of the matter. He argued

2 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.17 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 17 1796 17 96 96/Chny/ 96 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

that the notice u/s 148 of the act was issued beyond the specified date

which is beyond six years. He placed on record the order of this

tribunal in the case of Natarajan Sangeetha in ITA No.3280/Chny/2025

for AY-2015-16 and argued that the issue of notice for AY 2015-16 u/s.

148 of the act is four years from the end of the relevant assessment

year. Further, notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued on 06.04.2022

which is beyond the time limit as specified u/s. 149 of the act. The

Ld.AR argued that the notice issued on 06.04.2022 is barred by

limitation and resultantly the re-assessment is thereon is liable to be

quashed.

3.

The Ld.DR, Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT submits that the reassessment

was initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the act dated 06.04.2022 based on

NMS – flagged cash deposits treated as unexplained money u/s 69A

of the act. The argument of Ld.AR that all the notices issued u/s 148

of the act post 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid in terms of

decision in the case of Rajiv Bansal is a gross misreading and does

not invalidate notices wholesale, it upholds them where compliant with

extended timelines under TOLA 2020 and exclusions under the third

proviso to section 149(1) of the act. Further, she argued that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal addressed

notices issued u/s 148 old regime (pre 01.04.2021) between

3 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.17 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 17 1796 17 96 96/Chny/ 96 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deeming them as show cause notices u/s

148A(b) of the new regime w.e.f. 01.04.2021. She argued vehemently

that this a curative measure under article 142 to balance revenue and

assessee’s interest amid Covid-19 disturbances and legislative

amendments via Finance Act 2021.

4.

Further, she submits that the deeming fiction revived notices

valid under the old regime extended six year limit (old section 149(1)(b)

r.w. proviso old section 147 expiring 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 in

cases of escaped income more than one lakh. She submits it

prevented still born proceedings and allowed continuation under the

new regime subject to timelines. She argued vehemently that the

notice dated 06.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the act falls within this

transitional frame work, post Ashis Agarwal implementation via CBDT

instruction no.1/2022 dated 11.05.2022. Further, she argued that

contradictory to the assessee’s claim, Rajiv Bansal decision does not

invalidate section 148 notices as it clarifies and upholds them for AYs

like 2015-16 when issued within surviving timelines. The court

examined interplay of old / new regimes, TOLA extensions from

20.03.2020 – 31.03.2021 to 30.06.2021 exclusions under the third

proviso to section 149(1) of the act. She prayed to dismiss the ground

nos. 5 to 7 raised by the assessee.

4 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.17 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 17 1796 17 96 96/Chny/ 96 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

5.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on

record. We note that this Tribunal in the case of Natarajan Sangeetha

(Supra), in order to find out as to whether the notice issued u/s 148 is

time barred or not, examined the relevant provisions of the act and

legal position as per judicial proceedings vide para-4 of the order dated

04.02.2026. We note that the Tribunal examined the provisions u/s

149 as on 01.04.2022 and prior to the amendment in paras-4 & 5

respectively. Considering the same and also based on the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal reported in 469 ITR

430(SC) held that the revenue cannot issue notice u/s. 148 of the act

for assessment years prior to AY-2021-22 if six years from the end of

the relevant assessment year is expired on the date of issue of such

notice. Accordingly, held the notice therein dated 07.04.2022 was

issued beyond the time limit hence not valid. Further, the Tribunal held

the arguments of Ld.DR is not acceptable for the reason, for the

purpose of applying exclusion period, the notice should first survive the

test of being issued either under sections 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b) under

the new regime. Accordingly, held the question of applying on the third

proviso for calculating time limit does not arise. On plain reading of

the said order, we find facts and circumstances of the present case are

similar in respect of issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 19.04.2022 is barred

by limitation as the six years period would expire as on 31.03.2022.

5 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.17 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 17 1796 17 96 96/Chny/ 96 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

Therefore, we hold that the notice dated 19.04.2022 issued u/s. 148 of

the act is barred by limitation, resultantly the reassessment dated

09.01.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the act is invalid and accordingly

quashed. Thus, ground nos. 5 to 7 raised by the assessee is allowed.

6.

In view of our decision in ground nos. 5 to 7, all other grounds

raised in the form-36 become academic and requiring no adjudication.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 15th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 15.05.2026

JPV आदेश की ,ितिलिप अ4ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant, 2.,-थ+/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु5/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय ,ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.19 16:16:18 +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 →