NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT- 3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1216/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 October 2026AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-3, Ahmedabad, dated 27.02.2026, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT sought to revise the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16, on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) had failed to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the underlying reassessment order itself, arguing that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 30th June 2021, which was time-barred as per Supreme Court decisions.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for A.Y. 2015-16 was issued on 30.06.2021. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., the Tribunal noted the revenue's concession that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148A was clearly barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment order void ab initio. As the underlying assessment order was void, the PCIT could not assume jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise it. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order of the PCIT and allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment order passed under Section 147 for A.Y. 2015-16 is valid, considering the notice under Section 148 was issued on 30th June 2021, which the assessee contends is time-barred as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 30th June 2021, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period for A.Y. 2015-16, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. Therefore, the reassessment order is void ab initio, and the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 jurisdiction to revise a non-existent order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri Tapas Ram Misra

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, CIT-DR

PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-3 (hereinafter referred to as “PCIT”), dated 27.02.2026 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. The Ld. PCIT sought to revise the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on the ground that the A.O. had failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

I.T.A No. 1216/Ahd/

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 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →