M/S RAMA FOOD GRAIN CO.,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6984/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2012-138 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 under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, as the limitation expired on March 31, 2019. Consequently, the reassessment made pursuant to this notice was quashed as void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The notice was dated March 30, 2019, but was dispatched on April 1, 2019, and delivered on April 2, 2019.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the notice under Section 148 was issued within the prescribed limitation period, and if not, whether the subsequent reassessment was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 24.03.2026Pronounced: 22.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6984/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/s. Rama Food Grain Co. Vs ITO C/o Mr. Kanishik Rana, Ward- 47(1) Advocate 112, Hans Delhi Bhawan, Wing-2, IP Estate, New Delhi PAN No.AAAFR3163R Appellant Respondent S. A. No. 613/Del/2025 (In ITA No.6984/Del/2025) [Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/s. Rama Food Grain Co. Vs ITO C/o Mr. Kanishik Rana, Ward- 47(1) Advocate 112, Hans Delhi Bhawan, Wing-2, IP Estate, New Delhi PAN No.AAAFR3163R Appellant Respondent

Appellant by Sh. Kanishk Rana, Advocate Sh. Ayush Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2026

ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 04.11.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset the assessee has raised following grounds :-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and in fact in remanding back the matter to the AO without deciding the main ground raised by the Appellant of the proceedings being time barred. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and in fact in not appreciating that the notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2019 was issued on 01.04.2019 and was therefore time-barred in terms of Section 149 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in not appreciating that all proceedings emanating from a time barred notice are void. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in fact in not appreciating that the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act expired on 31.03.2019 in the present case, being 6 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, i.e., 2012-13. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in not appreciating that no jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess an Assessee where the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and in fact in not appreciating that despite raising the issue of limitation at the very first occasion, vide letter dated 12.04.2019, the same was never dealt with by the Ld. AO while passing the Assessment Order dated 10.12.2019. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in falling to appreciate the judgments of the Honorable High Courts relied upon by the Appellant.

8.

The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, and in complete disregard of the settled law. 9. The Ld. AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.

10.

The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one another.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal is time barred and there is delay in filing the appeal of 261 days in filing the appeal. The petition for condonation of delay is as under :-

4.

For the reasons explained in the above petition for condonation of delay and accompanying affidavit alongwith the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and has caused owing to the factors beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, the delay may be condoned.

5.

Ongoing through the petition for condonation of delay, accompanying affidavit and the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court we are of the view that the assessee is prevented with reasonable cause in filing the appeal with delay. Therefore, the same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

6.

Coming to the merits of the appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground No.2 of grounds of appeal submitted that notice dated 30.03.2019 was issued u/s.148 of the Act after 01.04.2019 the same is barred by limitation as per the provision of section 149 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that since the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation, the consequential assessment made u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is void ab initio.

7.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the notice dated 30.03.2019 which is placed at page-1 of the Page | 5

paper book and also the speed post tracking consignment issued by the postal authorities and submitted that the envelope containing the copy of notice u/s.148 of the Act was booked for dispatch through speed post on 01.04.2019 at 11.25 a.m. and this was delivered to the assessee at 19.50 hrs and therefore, it is submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Act is clearly barred by limitation. Our attention was drawn to pages 127 of the paper book containing copy of notice and the speed post tracking consignment, the stamping of the postal authorities of the envelopes to buttress the argument that the notice issued u/s.148 was barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Hon’ble Sumanjeet Aggarwal Vs. ITO (449 ITR 517) and Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt (334 ITR 25) in support of the above contentions.

8.

On the other hand the Ld. DR placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyay Vs. Shananbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 submitted that the notice issued is valid notice.

9.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the materials placed before us. On perusal of the speed post tracking consignment and also the envelopes we find that though the notice u/s.148 of the Act is dated 30.03.2019 the same was dispatched on 01.04.2019 at 11.25 hrs and delivered to the assessee on 02.04.2019 at 19.50 hrs. Since the notice was dispatched

/ booked for delivery to the assesse on 01.04.2019 the same is issued beyond the period of limitation as specified in section 149 of the Act, expired on 31.03.2019 being six years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 20.12.2013. In this circumstances we hold that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is barred by limitation and consequently the assessment made pursuant to such notice is bad in law, void abinitio and therefore, reassessment is hereby quashed. Ground No.2 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Case law relied on by the Ld. DR is distinguishable on facts. 10. Since we have quashed the reassessment allowing ground No. 2 of grounds of appeal which is a legal ground, all other grounds needs not be adjudicated at this stage as they render academic. 11. The stay application is dismissed as infructuous. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and stay application is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:22.05.2026 Page | 7

NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →