GUNDU SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 150/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 June 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year, contrary to the first proviso to Section 149(1). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a reassessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to the assessee's medical condition.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was barred by limitation. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated were valid given the procedural grounds raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149(1),Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, विशाखापत्तनम पीठ, विशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री उदयन दास गुप्ता, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा, माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.150/Viz/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Gundu Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-2(5) PAN : BKXPG4584M Visakhapatnam (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

निर्धाऩिती द्वधिध/ Shri GVN Hari, Advocate Assessee represented by: िधजस्वV द्वधिध/ Revenue represented by: Sri Gunnu Sudhir, Sr.AR

सुिवधई की तधिीख/ 16.06.2026 Date of conclusion of hearing: घोषणध की तधिीख/ 19.06.2026 Date of pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/2025- 26/1082057602(1) dated 28.10.2025, arising out of order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 18.03.2024 for the A.Y.2015-16.

2.

Before adjudicating the issue on merits, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal by the appellant. The Ld.AR of the appellant has submitted that a petition for condonation of delay was already filed before ITAT, in which, it is stated that the appellant suffered from severe back pain due to disk problem during the third week of December, 2025 and the appellant was advised to take complete bed rest along with medication till the paid is reduced. It was mentioned that the appellant could not attend to any other affairs and hence could not file the appeal within the due date. The appellant has filed an affidavit as well as medical certificates to this extent and requested that the small delay of 44 days may be condoned and the issue may be adjudicated on merits.

2.1. After taking into consideration, the detailed affidavit and medical certificate, the Bench decided to condone the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits.

3.

The above case relates to A.Y.2015-16 and the assessment in the case of appellant was completed by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment was completed u/s 147 r,.w.s. 144B vide order dated 18.03.2024. This is a case of reassessment, the appellant raised following legal grounds by way of additional grounds of appeal and the same are reproduced hereunder:

1.

The notice dt.03.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation by virtue of 1st proviso to S.149(1) of the Act. 2. The notice u/s 148A(b) issued on 22.03.2022 did not provide for clear 7 of time to the appellant and hence, the same is invalid and consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. The notice dt.03.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as the same was issued by the JAO but not the PAO, in contravention of the provisions of S.151A of the Act and hence the notice is liable to be quashed as invalid.

3.1. These legal issues were not raised before the lower authorities, which are purely legal in nature and all the relevant facts were already on record and hence, these additional grounds are admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383/157 CTR 249 (SC) and order is passed accordingly by the ITAT.

3.2. From the above additional legal grounds, it is observed that for the impugned A.Y.2015-16, notice u/s 148 was issued on 03.04.2022, which falls after expiry of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and as such, notice is barred by limitation by virtue of First proviso to section 149(1) of the Act. The second legal ground raised is that the Ld.AO has not granted clear 7 days of time to the appellant for submitting reply in response to notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The appellant raised third legal ground of appeal stating that the notice was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) and after introduction of e-Assessment of Income Escapement Assessment Scheme, 2022 w.e.f. 29.03.2022, notice u/s 148 shall be issued in faceless manner by the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”). Hence, on that count also, the Ld.AR of the appellant argued that notice issued to the appellant was invalid. Even though the appellant raised third ground in the additional grounds of appeal, the same was not pressed during the course of hearing and the Ld.AR has submitted that he is withdrawing this ground of appeal and hence not being adjudicated in this order.

4.

The Ld.DR has stated that at the time of initiation of proceedings, the CBDT has issued a detailed Circular, stating that notice u/s 148 had to be issued for A.Y.2015-16 also because this year is also covered for limitation purposes and the Ld.AO is correct by following the Circular of CBDT.

5.

After hearing both the sides, it is observed that this issue of limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 before 01.04.2021 for the A.Y.2015-16 was held as invalid, because notice u/s 148 was issued after expiry of six years from the end of relevant assessment year and hence first proviso to section 149(1) comes into play and the notice issued u/s 148 was held as barred by limitation as per this proviso. This issue of notice u/s 148 issued for the A.Y.2015-16, being time barred was considered by the coordinate Bench in the cases of 3 Realties Pvt.Ltd., Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad Vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad in ITA No.758/Hyd/2025 dated 17.04.2026 and the case of Penugonda Yagnasree in ITA No.722/Viz/2025 dated 14.05.2026, and it was held that the notice issued u/s 148 for the A.Y.2015-16 is barred by limitation. In fact for the A.Y.2015-16, the Revenue itself had conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they do not fall for within the period prescribed under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”). Hence, the notice issued by the Department on 03.04.2022 is barred by limitation in view of proviso of section 149(1) and it is not covered by TOLA. Similarly, this Tribunal has been consistently following the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Vs. DCIT dated 17.11.2025 in WP No.25121/2024, where it was held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after six years from the end of the assessment commenced on or before 01.04.2021 is barred by limitation. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the notice was issued on 03.04.2022 and hence the same is beyond the period of six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, limitation provided u/s 149(1)(b) read with proviso to the said section makes it clear that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021. Respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the above case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Vs. DCIT and decisions of coordinate Benches, income escapement notice issued by the Department is held as invalid and hence the consequent proceedings are also invalid.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (उदयन दास गुप्ता) (ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam dated 19.06.2026. L.Rama/Sr.PS Copy to: GUNDU SATYANARAYANA, D.NO.1-120, ANANDAPURAM MANDALAM, PEDDIPALEM, 1 BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-531163, ANDHRA PRADESH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), INCOME TAX OFFICE, INFINITY 2 TOWERS, SANKARAMATAM ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM-530016, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →