HASUMATIBEN HARKISHANBHAI PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 1467/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 September 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hasumatiben Harkishanbhai Parmar, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.03.2025, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after receiving information about an immovable property purchased by the assessee. The sale deed showed a consideration of Rs. 8,56,500, while a 'Satakhat' indicated a value of Rs. 2,68,16,278, leading to a difference of Rs. 2,59,59,778. The AO observed that the assessee had not filed a return of income for AY 2015-16 and treated the source of investment as unexplained. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 23.07.2022. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,68,16,278 under Section 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) had recorded the Revenue's concession that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, were liable to be dropped. Furthermore, the Gujarat High Court, in cases like Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel and Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF, following the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel & Power Ltd., had ruled that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 were time-barred. In the present case, the original notice under Section 148 was issued on June 30, 2021, and a subsequent notice was issued on July 23, 2022. Respectfully following these binding precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was held to be bad in law and quashed. As the reassessment order was quashed, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to adjudicate the grounds related to the merit of the addition made by the AO, leaving those issues undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 are legally valid, considering the timing of the notices issued? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices issued for reassessment under Section 148 were beyond the limitation period prescribed by law. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which held that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, must be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 ('TOLA'). The assessee also cited Gujarat High Court decisions in Mayur Kumar Babubhai Patel and Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the assessment order and the order of the learned CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,Section 148A(b),Section 149,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 142(1),Section 155

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nilisha Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

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 18.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 after limitation period. The ground is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC).

2.

On the facts and c

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 148

All 34,599 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →