HEERA LAL,VILLAGE BADAWALA vs. ITO-1(1),MORADABAD, ITO, MORADABAD

ITA 6553/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The primary reason for this decision was that the section 148 notice was issued on 19.03.2024, which falls beyond the three-year period stipulated in section 149(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal found this to be a clinching factual position. Citing the precedent of Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde v. ITO [2023] 146 taxmann.com 66, the Tribunal quashed the reopening itself as being initiated in violation of section 149(1)(b). Consequently, all remaining pleadings between the parties on merits were rendered academic. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Heera Lal, is appealing an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 08.05.2026. This order pertains to assessment year 2017-18 and involved reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue initiated reassessment proceedings alleging immovable property purchases of Rs. 58 lakhs. However, the reassessment order, framed on 18.03.2025, added only Rs. 20.70 lakhs related to these purchases. A crucial fact is that the section 148 notice was issued to the assessee on 19.03.2024, which is beyond the three-year period prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2017-18 are valid, considering the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the period prescribed in section 149(1)(b) of the Act? The Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the section 148 notice was issued beyond the period of three years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. The assessee relied on the decision in Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde v. ITO [2023] 146 taxmann.com 66. The Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Vir Sain Aggarwal, Adv
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088899752(1), dated 08.05.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing that the learned departmental authorities have set into motion section 148/147 proceedings in the assessee’s case alleging immovable properties purchases of Rs.58 lakhs whereas the reassessment framed on 18.03.2025 has added a sum of Rs.20.70 lakhs on

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 →