SRI SENTHIL MURUGAN REAL AGENCY,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, VILLUPURAM

ITA 3364/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 October 2026AY 2015-168 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 04.04.2022 is indeed barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the law is well-settled that any notice under section 148 for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 01.04.2022 is time-barred. The Tribunal referred to the amended provisions of section 149(1) of the Act, effective from 01.04.2021, and the prior provisions. It was observed that the notice in this case was issued after the expiry of the permissible period under the law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order dated 27.02.2024 were held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents, including its own coordinate bench decision in Sivaram Lakshmi v. ITO, which relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Rajiv Bansal. The legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the consequent assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sri Senthil Murugan Real Agency, a partnership firm engaged in real estate, filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on 19.06.2025. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 276 days, which was condoned upon payment of Rs. 25,000/-. The case was reopened by the ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram, via notice dated 22.03.2022 under section 148A(b), followed by an order under section 148A(d) on 04.04.2022, and a notice under section 148 on 04.04.2022. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,81,51,915/- under section 69A for unexplained cash credits in bank accounts, leading to a demand of Rs. 1,89,83,486/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 04.04.2022 is barred by limitation, rendering the consequent reassessment proceedings and order bad in law? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 for AY 2015-16 was issued on 04.04.2022, which is beyond the prescribed time limit. The six-year period to issue such a notice for AY 2015-16 would have ended on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the notice is time-barred, and the reassessment is liable to be quashed. The assessee relied on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including UOI v. Rajiv Bansal, ACIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 22.03.2022, which is within the six-year time period, and therefore, the AO's order is not vitiated on account of a time-barred notice. The revenue urged for the dismissal of the legal ground raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 149(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT
Hearing: 21.08.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed u/s.147 read

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 →