RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6712/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2026AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made pursuant to this time-barred notice was deemed bad in law and void-ab-initio, and thus quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order concerning AY 2013-14. The primary contention was that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred and invalid. The assessee relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding limitation periods for such notices.

What were the issues?

The key legal issues were whether the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred and whether the subsequent reassessment was valid given the invalid notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 68,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

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

ITA No.6712/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Ramesh Kumar Bansal Vs. ITO A-29, First Floor, G.I.A. Ward- 36(1) Wazirpur,Ashok Vihar, Delhi Delhi-110052 PAN No.ADJPB9470H Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Mukul Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 06.10.2025 for the A.Y.2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “10.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the purely legal issue of time limitation as the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is time-barred, invalid and without jurisdiction as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC).

10.2 On facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to consider the legal issue raised by the appellant in casually restoring matter back to assessing officer without appreciating that assessment order passed u/s 147/144 dated 30.05.2023 Is Invalid being passed without valid reasons to believe u/s 148(2) for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act.

10.3 On facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to consider the legal issue raised by the appellant in casually restoring matter back to assessing officer without appreciating that assessment order passed u/s 147/144 dated 30.05.2023 is Invalid being passed without valid approval u/s 151 as per law;

10.4 On facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has failed to consider the legal issue raised by the appellant in casually restoring matter back to assessing officer without appreciating that assessment order passed u/s 147/144 dated 30.05.2023 is itself Invalid as addition u/s 68 has been made on account of disclosed trading sales in books in making apparent double taxation on gross receipt basis;

The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any of the grounds either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal for the reason that the notice issued u/s.148

of the Act dated 27.07.2022 pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aggarwal is barred by limitation since was issued beyond the surviving period.

4.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The sequence of events and the calculation of time limit for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal is as under :-

5.

As could be seen from the above the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 is clearly barred by limitation since it was issued beyond the surviving period as set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, we hold that Page | 3

the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 is barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment made u/s.143 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 pursuant to the said time barred notice is bad in law and void-ab-initio and the same is hereby quashed.

6.

Since we have quashed the reassessment on legal ground we are not adjudicating the grounds on merits and the same is left open.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.05.2026

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 →