HARSHALI LAVISHKUMAR JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 1463/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 October 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.06.2022, was time-barred and therefore invalid. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and the jurisdictional High Court's pronouncements, which established that notices issued under Section 148 beyond the 'surviving time' were invalid. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued the notice on 29.06.2022, which was beyond the permissible period calculated based on the assessee's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice and the 'surviving time' available. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed and set aside as it did not survive. The legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed. As the assessment order was quashed, other grounds on merits were rendered infructuous and left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harshali Lavishkumar Jain, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and issued a notice under Section 148 on 29.06.2022. This action was based on information that the assessee had declared Rs. 50,00,000/- under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, but failed to submit Form-4. The AO made an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained income from other sources. The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, citing Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment under Section 147, is time-barred, considering the directions of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, and the concept of 'surviving time' (Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A, Section 149). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the initial notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.06.2021, which was the last day of the extended period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Following the Supreme Court's directions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, the AO was required to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 within the 'surviving time' after the assessee's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. The assessee submitted that the AO issued the new notice under Section 148 on 29.06.2022, which was beyond the permissible 'surviving time' of 15.06.2022, rendering the notice and subsequent assessment order void ab initio. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the AO's action and requested to uphold the AO's order. Alternatively, the Revenue suggested remanding the matter to the AO for examination and verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

Pronounced: 01.10.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 10.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening t

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 →