MANGAL MANI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 672/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 June 2026AY 2013-1415 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued on April 1, 2021, making it time-barred. Consequently, the reassessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a jewellery trading firm, had its assessment reopened under Section 147. A notice under Section 148, though dated March 31, 2021, was allegedly issued on April 1, 2021, beyond the limitation period.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the notice under Section 148 was issued within the prescribed limitation period, considering its date and actual dispatch date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 11/06/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 672/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mangal Mani Jewellers Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax PAN: AATFM2380C Circle 6(1), Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Saiprasad Ghosh राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Mangal Mani Jewellers (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 09.02.2026 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds and additional grounds of appeal:

3.

The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that additional grounds so filed are admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229

ITR 383 (SC). The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) also did not raise any objection for admission of the additional grounds. The prayer for admission of additional grounds noted above which are not in memorandum of appeal are being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional grounds are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of jewellery trading. The assessee filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.6,06,852/-. The assessment of the assessee was completed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”)under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 26.03.2016 assessing the total income at Rs.7,55,370/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued by the Ld. AO on 31.03.2021. In response thereto, the assessee filed its return of income on 21.04.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.41,15,370/-.

5.

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

6.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld.

AR submitted that under Ground No.1 of the additional grounds, the assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that though the notice under section 148 of the Act bears the date 31.03.2021, the same was actually issued on 01.04.2021, which is beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 149 of the Act as applicable at the relevant point of time. It was submitted that the assessment year under consideration is Assessment Year 2013-14 and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act, the notice under section 148 of the Act was required to be issued within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the last date for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act was 31.03.2021. However, the notice was issued by the Ld. AO only on 01.04.2021 and, therefore, the same is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

7.

The Ld. AR invited our attention to the copy of notice issued under section 148 of the Act placed at page no. 3 of the paper book and submitted that though the notice is dated 31.03.2021, the same was actually communicated to the assessee through email on 01.04.2021. He further invited our attention to the email communication placed at page no. 4 of the paper book and demonstrated that the notice was sent by the Revenue on 01.04.2021 at 03:54 A.M. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the screenshot of the Income-tax portal placed at page no. 7 of the paper book and pointed out that the date of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act is reflected therein as 01.04.2021. It was thus submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the notice was issued only on 01.04.2021, which is beyond the prescribed period of

limitation. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO reported in 143 taxmann.com 11. Accordingly, it was prayed that the reassessment order be quashed.

8.

Per contra, the Ld. DR invited our attention to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act placed at page no. 3 of the paper book and submitted that the notice was digitally signed by the Ld. AO on 31.03.2021. It was submitted that after digitally signing the notice, the same was uploaded on the ITBA portal for onward transmission to the assessee. Due to the electronic processing involved in transmission of the notice, the email was generated and delivered to the assessee on 01.04.2021. It was thus submitted that the notice was in fact issued by the Ld. AO on 31.03.2021 itself and merely because the electronic communication reached the assessee on 01.04.2021, the notice cannot be treated as time-barred. Accordingly, it was prayed that the legal ground raised by the assessee be dismissed.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. We have carefully gone through the copy of the email communication received by the assessee from the Revenue regarding issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act placed at page no. 4 of the paper book, which is to the following effect:

10.

On perusal of the above, we find that the said email was sent by the Revenue on 01.04.2021 at 03:54 A.M. We have also examined the screenshot of the Income-tax portal placed at page no. 7 of the paper book , which is to the following effect:

11.

On perusal of the above, we find that the date of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act as per the Income Tax Portal is reflected as 01.04.2021. We have further perused

para nos. 25 to 25.23 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO (supra), which is to the following effect:

12.

On perusal of the above, we find that under identical facts, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that though the notice was dated 31.03.2021, the same having been issued on 01.04.2021 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation and consequently invalid in law. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman

Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO (supra), we hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was in fact issued on 01.04.2021 and, therefore, the same is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid in law and the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO. 13. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on the legal issue relating to the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. The same are kept open. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 17th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 MANGAL MANI JEWELLERS 7-2-772 TO 775, 5A PANNA COMPLEX ,POT MARKET SECUNDERABAD 500003 , 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 6(1) IT Towers, Hyderabad 500004 3 Pr. CIT , Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.06.17 RAO 17:10:13 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →