RASIKLAL KALYANJIBHAI BHUT,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD, 2(10), JAMNAGAR

ITA 1161/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 October 2026AY 2015-169 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was beyond the time allowed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (2025). The revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. The Tribunal also noted the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat's decision in Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF (2025) which followed the Rajeev Bansal judgment. Consequently, the notice under section 148 was quashed as time-barred, rendering the consequent assessment order under section 147 invalid. All other issues on merits were rendered academic and infructuous. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pratik Bhut, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, which upheld the reopening of assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The reopening was initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, via a notice issued on 29.07.2022. This stemmed from information received regarding a search by the Central Excise Department where the assessee reportedly accepted purchasing goods without invoices and provided total sales figures for FY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 1,88,53,462/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 24,53,887/- after estimating profit at 20% on the turnover. The assessee contended that income was declared under section 44AD at 8% on a turnover of Rs. 95,33,360/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16, was time-barred under section 149(1)(a) and the extended period under section 149(1)(b) was not applicable as the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50,00,000/-, and whether the notice was barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149 read with the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), as supported by the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Assessee's Contention: The notice issued on 29.07.2022 was time-barred as per section 149(1)(a) and the conditions for the extended period under section 149(1)(b) were not met. Furthermore, relying on the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, the notice was barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149 read with TOLA, 2020. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Ld. Sr. DR, fairly agreed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 149,Section 148,Section 44AD,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 01/10/2026Pronounced: 12/10/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 30.06.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 19.05.2023. 2. Grou

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 →