RAMASHISH RAJBALI YADAV,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4377/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2015-1614 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramashish Rajbali Yadav, is an individual engaged in dairy farming. For Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, he did not file a return of income. Information received via the INSIGHT Portal indicated financial transactions including purchase of immovable property (INR 45,00,000), cash deposits (INR 39,00,000), and interest income (INR 7,527). A notice under section 148 was issued on 08.04.2022, and the assessee filed a return declaring INR 2,04,870. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of INR 84,35,406 for cash deposits, INR 45,00,000 for property investment, and INR 7,527 for interest income. An unsecured loan of INR 25,00,000 was also added. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)) partly allowed the appeal, sustaining most additions. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 18.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, which is beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year (31.03.2016). Applying the first proviso to Section 149(1), the limitation period as it stood prior to 01.04.2021 is applicable. The Tribunal found that the notice was barred by limitation, as the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) do not extend the period of limitation applicable to this case. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was invalid, and the assessment order passed pursuant to this invalid assumption of jurisdiction was liable to be quashed. The additions and disallowances made in the assessment proceedings, therefore, do not survive. Any other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and did not require separate adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under Section 148 beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is valid, considering the provisions of Section 149(1) and its provisos, and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148, issued on 18.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, is beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed by the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as interpreted in the cases of UOI V/s Rajeev Bansal and Hexaware Technologies V/s ACIT. Therefore, the notice is void-ab-initio and the reassessment proceedings are invalid. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149(1),Section 149(1)(b),Section 69A,Section 69,Section 56,Section 115BBE,Section 68,Section 139,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale
For Respondent: Shri Prasanna Tewari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.09.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, arises from the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 29.01.2024, passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [in short, “the Ld. AO”]. Ramashish Rajbali Yadav

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming th

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 →