AMBA SHAKTI ISPAT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION

ITA 5667/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2026AY 2014-1511 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 barred by limitation, having been issued beyond the period specified under Section 149 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and a co-ordinate bench decision in Mukesh Vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that the notice was issued 50 days beyond the last permissible date of 10.06.2022, as per the calculations presented by the assessee and supported by the Supreme Court's directions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this time-barred notice were quashed as void ab initio. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition made under Section 69A.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amba Shakti Ispat Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 74,20,160. Information received from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries allegedly provided by M/s Kamakhya Enterprises led to reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 6,11,25,229 under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, determining the total income at Rs. 6,85,45,389. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The notice under Section 148 was dated 29.07.2022, and the order under Section 148A(d) was also dated 29.07.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, is barred by limitation, thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and a co-ordinate bench decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Vs. ITO & Anr (2025) 445 ITR 1 (Del), which held that notices issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation are invalid. The assessee provided a table calculating the time-barred nature of the notice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, after reviewing the assessee's submissions regarding the time-barred notice, submitted that the Tribunal may consider the submissions with respect to the applicability of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal case at its discretion and prayed for restoring the file to the AO for deciding the matter afresh.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan&

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 10.09.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.04.2026 of ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal against the best judgment Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023 was dismissed.

2.

Facts in brief as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.74,20,160/-. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries

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 →