SANDHYA ANIL SONI,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on July 25, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was bad in law and time-barred. This was based on the concession made by the Revenue and various judicial precedents regarding the applicability of TOLA and the limitation period for reopening assessments.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment for AY 2015-16 was reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148 on July 25, 2022. The assessee argued that this notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was within the prescribed limitation period, considering the provisions of TOLA and the concessions made by the Revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: MS. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2015-16 on 24.05.2024, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 02.05.2023. Submission of Ld. AR :
The Ld. AR filed paper book. The relevant paragraphs of the written submissions filed by the Ld. AR are reproduced here as under :
“1. The impugned reassessment proceedings on account of notice issued u/s 148 on 25/07/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 is time barred and bad in law/void ab initio:
2 In this case, notice u/s 148 has been issued on 25/07/2022 i.e. b
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026