MAHESHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI VEKARIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2000/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, was invalid as it was issued beyond the surviving period. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. The original notice under Section 148, issued on 30.06.2021, was treated as a notice under Section 148A(b). Following the directions in Ashish Agarwal, the period for issuing the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime was to be calculated based on the time surviving under the Income Tax Act read with the Taxation and Other Laws Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), and extended by the period granted for compliance under Section 148A. In this case, the surviving period for issuing the notice under Section 148 was up to 06.07.2022. Since the notice was issued on 29.07.2022, it was beyond the limitation period. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were quashed as time-barred, and the impugned assessment order was also quashed and set aside. The Tribunal did not decide on the addition on account of alleged cash deposit under Section 69A.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maheshbhai Parshottambhai Vekariya, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.09.2024, concerning Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal challenges the reopening of the assessment and the subsequent assessment order. The assessee contends that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, was time-barred. The original notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.06.2021. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, this was treated as a notice under Section 148A(b). Material was shared on 25.05.2022, with the assessee replying on 29.06.2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022, and a fresh notice under Section 148 was issued on the same date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed as time-barred, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the notice under Section 148, issued on 29.07.2022, is time-barred. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal, the assessee contends that the original notice issued on 30.06.2021, deemed to be under Section 148A(b), had a surviving period of only one day. This period was extended to seven days after the assessee's reply. However, the notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022, which is beyond the permissible time limit of 06.07.2022. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151,Section 151A,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 119

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.R, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 28/09/2026

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”, dated 30.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal:

ITA No.2000/Ahd/2024[Maheshbhai Parshottambhai Vekariya vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – “1. In law and on the

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 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →