MAKRANA TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CR BUILDING DELHI

ITA 2943/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2014-1513 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The primary issue addressed was the limitation period for issuing the notice under section 148. The Tribunal noted that the original notice under the old regime was issued on 29.06.2021. The extended deadline to issue a notice under the old regime, as per TOLA, was 30.06.2021, leaving only one day remaining. The AO issued a letter under section 148A(b) on 04.05.2022, followed by a reply from the assessee on 10.06.2022. The order under section 148A(d) was passed on 27.07.2022, and the notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors Vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal held that the extended due date for issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act expired on 17.06.2022. Since the notice was issued on 27.07.2022, it was treated as time-barred. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The Tribunal respectfully followed the Supreme Court's decision and allowed the legal issue raised by the assessee. The other grounds of appeal were not explicitly decided as the appeal was allowed on the preliminary legal ground of limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Makrana Tradecom Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 13.03.2026, which upheld the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The AO had made additions of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 1,14,50,000/-. The assessee's original return for AY 2014-15 was filed on 29.09.2014. The case was reopened, and a notice under section 148 was issued on 30.07.2022. The assessee filed a revised return on 26.08.2023. A notice under section 143(2) was issued on 05.01.2023. The assessee's objections to the reopening were disposed of, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by this dismissal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 are barred by limitation, rendering the notice under section 148 void ab initio, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the permissible time limit, even after considering the benefit of the judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, and thus the proceedings are without jurisdiction. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this specific ground of limitation in light of the decision in Rajeev Bansal v. UOI, making the order non-speaking. The revenue, through the DR, relied on the AO's order and submitted that the notice was issued within time pursuant to the judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal after complying with all conditions, and that the assessee had not raised this issue before the AO. 2. Whether the jurisdictional conditions for reopening were satisfied, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment without appreciating that these conditions were not met. 3. Whether the AO disposed of the objections raised by the assessee against reopening in violation of the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO, as argued by the assessee. 4. Whether the reassessment order was passed in the name of a non-existing entity (due to conversion into LLP) and is therefore void in law, as argued by the assessee. 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,34,50,000/- under section 68 was confirmed without appreciating that the assessee had duly explained the nature and source of transactions, which were routed through banking channels with necessary evidence, as argued by the assessee. 6. Whether the addition was made merely on assumptions, suspicion, and general investigation reports without bringing any direct adverse material on record, as argued by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 148A,Section 149,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee is against order dated 13.03.2026 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order

P a g e | 2

dated 30.05.2023 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed return of income of Rs. 30,812/- on 29.09.2014. On basis of credible information after due process, the case was reopened f

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →