BHUTORIA DEALERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WAD 5(1), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1971/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 August 2026AY 2015-20166 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay, claiming they were unaware of the lower appellate authority's order. The delay was condoned by the tribunal. The core issue revolved around a reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 is time-barred. The validity of an assessment order passed pursuant to a time-barred notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 56,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 24.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1971/KOL/2026 Assessment Year:2015-16

Bhutoria Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata 23A Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN: AABCB3027A] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR Date of hearing : 03.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

There is a delay of 238 days in filing the captioned Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“3. That although the said appellate order is shown as passed on 30/07/2025, no real-time alert, e-mail SMS, electronic intimation, or physical communication regarding the passing or availability of the said order was ever served upon us.

ITA No.1971/Kol/2026 Bhutoria Dealers Private Limited; A.Y: 2015-16 4. That we first came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only on 21/05/2026, when the Central Processing Cell (CPC), Bengaluru, telephonically contacted us and requested payment of the outstanding demand arising due to such dismissal. 5. That immediately upon receiving the said telephonic intimation, we informed our counsel, who thereafter accessed the income Tax e-filing portal and discovered for the first time that the appeal had been dismissed. Necessary steps for initiating the present appeal were taken without any undue delay.” 3. The Ld. AR reiterating the averments made in the Application, sought for condoning the delay in filing the captioned Appeal.

4.

The Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the captioned Appeal on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 238 days in filing the captioned Appeal.

6.

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 claiming loss of

ITA No.1971/Kol/2026 Bhutoria Dealers Private Limited; A.Y: 2015-16 Rs.5,01,844/-. Based on the certain specific information, reasons were recorded and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 28.04.2021. An Assessment Order came to be passed on 24.05.2023, by making an addition of Rs.15,01,740/- u/s 56 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 24.05.2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 30.07.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As Against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

7.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submitted that the Assessment year under consideration being 2015-16, in view of the Revenue conceded before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, that ‘the notice issued for Assessment year 2015-16 were time barred’. Thus, submitted that the Assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be set aside.

8.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessment has been framed in accordance with law and pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 543. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

ITA No.1971/Kol/2026 Bhutoria Dealers Private Limited; A.Y: 2015-16 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessment year under consideration is 2015- 16. In so far the reassessment notice issued for the year under consideration, the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ‘the Assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for the reassessment would stand barred by time in the light of the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693)’. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again, while disposing the batch of cases, i.e., Income Tax Officer & Anr. Vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti reported in 2026(5) TMI 855-SC, observed as under: -

“3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, C.JI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters. 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

ITA No.1971/Kol/2026 Bhutoria Dealers Private Limited; A.Y: 2015-16 Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the leamed 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. In view of the above, year under consideration being 2015-16, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is hereby held to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the Assessment Order framed thereon is hereby quashed.

11.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 24.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.08.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.1971/Kol/2026 Bhutoria Dealers Private Limited; A.Y: 2015-16 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →