ANIL DALMIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C. 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1433/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 October 2026AY 2012-1311 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2012-13 were indeed barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.03.2023. It was presumed that books of accounts and documents were received by the AO of the assessee in the previous year 2022-23. Therefore, the year in which the search action was to be treated as initiated in the case of the assessee was AY 2023-24. As per Section 153C, six years prior to the search year can be assessed, which goes up to AY 2017-18. Consequently, the reopening for AY 2012-13 was found to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the issue under Section 148 was barred by limitation. The order passed as a consequence was held to be void ab initio and quashed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the case to the file of the AO for reconsideration was accordingly set aside as infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anil Dalmia, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Jaipur, dated 24.09.2025, which had set aside the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remitted the matter back for fresh assessment. The original assessment was framed ex parte, making additions of Rs. 1,18,06,687/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash transactions and Rs. 44,88,867/- for alleged interest/commission earned. The reopening of the case was based on information obtained during a search and seizure action under Section 132 in the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group on 23.11.2021, which revealed cash transactions between the assessee and Radha Mohan Maheshwari, a finance broker. The assessment year in dispute is AY 2012-13.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13 were barred by limitation under Section 149 of the Act, considering the proviso thereto and the date of the search action. Assessee's contention: The assessment proceedings are barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Act, read with the proviso, because the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limits. The search action was conducted after 01.04.2021, and the provisions of Section 153A/153C were no longer applicable in their earlier form. Revenue's contention: The notice under Section 148 was not time-barred because a notice under Section 153C could have been issued as on 01.04.2021. The notice was issued after obtaining prior approval from the competent authority, and the AO had disposed of the assessee's objections in a speaking order. 2. Whether the addition made on account of alleged unaccounted cash transactions and interest/commission was sustainable, without prejudice to the limitation issue. Assessee's contention: The addition was made without allowing credit for peak investment in the preceding year, which would have reduced the quantum of proposed addition to less than Rs. 50.00 Lacs, making the proceedings unsustainable under Section 149 as being beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 148,Section 149,Section 69A,Section 147,Section 132,Section 153A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(Appeals), Jaipur 05 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”),

P a g e | 2 Anil Dalmia dated 24.09.2025 under Section 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-

1.

That the Id. CIT (A) erred in law in sending the case back to Id. AO for framing a fresh assessment by observing that the Id. AO had passed the order u/s 144 whereas the Id. AO had framed the assessment after considering complete replies of the assessee.

2.

Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the CIT

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 →