SHEELA DEVI,ETAWAH vs. ITO,WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH, ETAWAH

ITA 419/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 October 2026AY 2015-1612 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 was bad in law and void ab initio. The reasoning was that the AO, in the order passed under Section 148A(d), failed to record a specific finding that the material in his possession suggested the quantification of escapement of income was Rs. 50,00,000/- or likely to exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-. This finding is a pre-condition as per Section 149(1)(b) for reopening the case after the lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the information about cash deposits alone was sufficient to establish the threshold. The AO must categorically record the amount of escapement of income upon verification, which was absent. Consequently, the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax without such a finding was also considered invalid. The assessment order dated 11.03.2023 was held to be invalid and quashed. The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 of the original appeal and grounds No. 1.1 & 1.2 of the additional grounds. Other grounds were left open as academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sheela Devi, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 85,25,000/- in the assessee's savings account. After issuing a notice under Section 148A(d) and receiving a response, the AO disallowed a claim of deduction of Rs. 30,10,588/- related to the sale of agricultural land, treating it as commercial/residential plots and not eligible for Section 54B exemption. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The assessee's primary challenge revolves around the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment after three years, citing the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 149(1)(b).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148/149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and on facts, considering the alleged escapement of income was below Rs. 50,00,000/-? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to record a finding in the order under Section 148A(d) that the escapement of income was likely to exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-, a mandatory condition for reopening after three years under Section 149(1)(b). The actual addition made was Rs. 30,10,588/-, which is below the threshold. The assessee relied on the ITAT Agra bench's decision in *Adal Singh vs. ITO*. The assessee also contended that the approval under Section 151 was not properly documented and that agricultural operations were indeed carried out on the land sold and purchased. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. The AO's observation in the order under Section 148A(d) noted cash deposits of Rs. 59,60,000/-, which the revenue contended amounted to escapement of income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/-.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151,Section 250,Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10233333 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)), u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2.

In this case, the AO had an information as under : “The assessee has made cash deposits in ICICI Bank with her savings accounts of Rs.85,25,000/- during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2015-16.”

2.

1 Subsequently, order u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022 was passed and the notice u/s. 148 of 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 →