SUDHA,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVARUR

ITA 1314/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 October 2026AY 2015-1614 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 09.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., has held that notices issued after six years from the end of the assessment year, i.e., on or after 31.03.2022, do not survive. The Tribunal distinguished the decision in Ravi Constructions, stating that in the present case, the six-year period applicable under the old regime had expired on 31.03.2022, and the amended provisions could not revive or extend the already expired limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 and held that all consequent actions are non est in the eyes of law. The appeal of the Revenue on merits was dismissed as the assessee's appeal was decided in favour of the assessee on the legal issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The Revenue, based on information of cash deposits of Rs. 1,26,10,580/- and commission income of Rs. 22,914/-, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 06.04.2022, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 09.04.2022. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 22,33,628/- as business income and Rs. 3,15,89,775/- as unexplained money under Section 68. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted these additions. The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order, and the assessee also filed an appeal challenging the reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 09.04.2022, for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, turning on Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148, issued on 09.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, is barred by limitation as six years have passed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in UOI v. Rajiv Bansal and other Tribunal decisions. Revenue's Contention: The extension of limitation provided under the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act allows the Assessing Officer to issue the notice. Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Ravi Constructions vs. ACIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Hearing: 31.08.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3234/Chny/2025
ITA No.1314/Chny/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : These cross appeals

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 →