SRI HANSNATH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DARKHAPATNA, KALYANI NAGAR, CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 838/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, dated March 31, 2021, issued for Assessment Year 2015-16, is invalid and quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. and ITO vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti. In Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., the Supreme Court noted a concession by the revenue 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 within the prescribed period under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice in this case was dated March 31, 2021, which falls within this period. The Tribunal found further support in Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, where the Supreme Court reiterated that for AY 2015-16, notices issued for reassessment would be barred by time in light of the view taken in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. The ratio is that notices issued for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are invalid due to time limitations as per Supreme Court pronouncements. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sri Hansnath Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021. The assessee contended that this notice, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 28, 2022, should be quashed. The revenue supported the Assessing Officer's findings. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the Section 148 notice issued for AY 2015-16.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16 is valid and whether the consequential assessment order is liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 dated March 31, 2021, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 28, 2022, should be cancelled. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. to support the claim that the assessment order is liable to be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The Senior Departmental Representative supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 06/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)] in Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10220106 dated 28/07/2026 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri Somanath Sahoo, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer has issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act is dated 31.03.2021. It was the submission that the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2022 may be cancelled considering the order passed u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 relating to assessment year 2015-16. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. reported in 2 [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144(SC) and submitted that the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed.

4.

In reply, the Sr. DR has supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present appeal clearly shows that the impugned assessment year is A.Y 2015-16 and the order issued u/s 148 on 31.03.2021. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 4 and 5 has held as follows:

“4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."

5.

As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.”

5.

1 We further find support from another decision of the Hon’ble Appeal No.8682 of 2024 dated 04.05.2026 wherein in paras 4 to 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“4. The instant cases were segregated through the above- mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

6.

However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent- assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly.

7.

Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the juri ictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues.”

5.

2

Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. referred to supra and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Sai Kumar Mateti referred to supra, it is held that the notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2021 is invalid and the same is quashed and also the consequential assessment order is also quashed.

4

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026. GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 06/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रधतधलधपअग्रेधर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT दवभागीयप्रदतदनदि, आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT,

5.

Cuttack गार्डफाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

सत्यादपतप्रदत ////

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →