GAYATRI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRSUT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 245/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, as the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment order were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC for AY 2016-17. The Revenue issued a notice under Section 148 on 26.07.2022 for suppressed income of Rs. 6,47,859/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 is barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr DR
Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.245/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gayatri Educational And ITO, Exemption Ward, Charitable Trust Berhampur Vs N5/252, Nayapalli, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar, Odiassa 751015. (PAN: AACTG0062A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Chitrasen Parida, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2015-16/10285747 dated 28.01.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Chitrasen Parida, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that impugned assessment year is 2016-17. It was the submission that the suppressed income is Rs.6,47,859/-. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148 has been

ITA No.802/CTK/2026

issued on 26.07.2022. It was the submission that it is beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, therefore, in view of provisions of section 149, the notice u/s 148 is barred by limitation as the alleged income which has escaped assessment is below Rs.50 lakhs. The ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sevensea Vinicom (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 465 ITR 331. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148 dated 26.07.2022 may be quashed and also consequential assessment order be quashed.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. It is noticed that the alleged income which has escaped assessment is only Rs.6,47,859/- which is admittedly below the threshold limit of Rs.50 lakh. As per the provisions of section 149, the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 in cases where the alleged income which has escaped assessment is below Rs.50 lakh is 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In this case, the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 26.07.2022 which is beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation provided under the provisions of section 149 of the Act. This being so, the notice issued u/s 148 on 26.07.2022 is held to be barred by limitation and consequently quashed. As the notice has been quashed, the consequential assessment order is liable to be quashed and we do so. 2

ITA No.802/CTK/2026

This view of ours is also supported from the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sevensea Vinicom (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT referred to supra.

6.

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

Kolkata, the 13th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 13.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →