SEMA DAGA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 658/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 October 2026AY 2013-1412 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 25.07.2022, for the assessment year 2013-14, is barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the principle that once a notice for reassessment is issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the subsequent proceedings, including the reassessment order, become non-est (as if they never existed). The Tribunal respectfully followed its own previous decisions and those of higher authorities, including the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which established that reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving period of limitation are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was quashed. The Tribunal noted that since the reassessment itself was quashed, all subsequent proceedings became academic. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Seema Daga, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice, dated 25.07.2022, was issued beyond the period of limitation, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. The ITAT noted that a similar issue concerning the assessment year 2013-14 and a notice dated 27.07.2022 was decided in favour of the assessee by the same Bench in the case of Shri Inder Jaggi, Raipur Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25.07.2022, for the assessment year 2013-14 is barred by limitation, making the reassessment proceedings invalid? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of the surviving period of limitation, rendering it illegal and bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B is also invalid and liable to be quashed. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Delhi High Court's decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., and decisions of the ITAT Benches in M/s Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Vs ITO and KLM Steel Pipe Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, as well as a decision of the jurisdictional CG High Court, all of which purportedly held that notices issued after the lapse of the period of limitation are barred. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, could not furnish any evidence to refute the facts presented by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pandse, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 15.06.2026 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The contention in law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 25.07.2022 for A.Y.2013-14 is barred by limitation and accordingly, reopenin

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 →