PRANAV PRAKASHCHANDRA KANSARA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5 3 2 AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN VEJALPUR

ITA 911/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 September 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The AO reopened the assessee's case for AY 2013-14 to add Rs. 30,80,796/- as deemed dividend. The notice under section 148 was dated March 31, 2021, but was actually issued on April 1, 2021. The assessee contended that this notice was invalid due to procedural lapses and being time-barred.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148, issued on April 1, 2021, was invalid as it did not follow the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal's case, which required a notice under section 148A and a subsequent order before issuing a fresh notice under section 148. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under section 148 on April 1, 2021, were valid given the procedural requirements and the impact of the Ashish Agarwal judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish K Pandey, SR-DR
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 05.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.01.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,38,388/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO had received an information that the assessee is a Director in M/s. Pranav Prakashchandra Kansara Vs. ITO, A

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →