IMTEYAZ ABDUL SAYYAD,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATARA

ITA 1576/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2015-201618 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal, challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the grounds of time-barred notices under Section 148, were admissible as they went to the root of the matter. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the original notice under Section 148 was issued on 18.06.2021, within the TOLA period ending 30.06.2021, giving a "surviving period" of 12 days. The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 24.05.2022, with a reply due by 08.06.2022. Following the Supreme Court's ratio in UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Assessing Officer was required to issue the final notice under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 by 20.06.2022. However, the notice was issued on 21.07.2022, which was clearly time-barred. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the additions were deleted. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where the notices under Section 148 were also issued on 21.07.2022, beyond the surviving period of 12 days ending on 20.06.2022. The Tribunal quashed these proceedings and deleted the additions. The ratio is that if a Section 148 notice is not issued within the "surviving period" calculated as per the Supreme Court's pronouncements in the context of TOLA and the new reassessment regime, the notice is bad in law, and the Assessing Officer fails to assume jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Imteyaz Abdul Sayyad, filed appeals against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. These orders stemmed from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Act, arguing they were time-barred. The original notices under Section 148 were issued on 18.06.2021, within the extended period provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA). Subsequently, notices under Section 148A(b) were issued on 24.05.2022, with a response due by 08.06.2022. The final notices under Section 148 were issued on 21.07.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued for AY 2015-16 is time-barred, considering the "surviving period" for reassessment notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 149). 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential orders for AY 2015-16 are invalid due to the issuance of a time-barred notice under Section 148? (Question of law, concerning Section 147). 3. Whether the notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 are time-barred, following the same principles as for AY 2015-16? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 149). 4. Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential orders for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 are invalid due to the issuance of time-barred notices under Section 148? (Question of law, concerning Section 147). Assessee's contentions: The notices under Section 148 are time-barred. The original notices under Section 148 were issued on 18.06.2021, within the TOLA period ending 30.06.2021. The "surviving period" is 12 days. Notices under Section 148A(b) were issued on 24.05.2022, with a reply due by 08.06.2022. The Assessing Officer was required to issue the Section 148 notice by 20.06.2022 (12 days after 08.06.2022). However, the notices were issued on 21.07.2022, which is beyond the surviving period. Reliance was placed on UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543). Revenue's contentions: The Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A) but could not controvert the assessee's arguments regarding the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 08.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 23.01.2026 emanating out of respective Assessment Orders passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds on merits of the case but the assessee has also taken common additional ground for all the impugned assessment years under appeal challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s.148 of the Ac

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 →