BILQUIS BEGUM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2283/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 October 2026AY 2015-1635 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation based on her daughter-in-law's medical condition. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 12.04.2022 was indeed barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period of six years from the end of Assessment Year 2015-2016. This finding was based on the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and was supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Sai Kumar Mateti, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited, and the Tribunal's own decision in Sudheer Parimala. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, rendering other grounds raised by the assessee infructuous. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bilquis Begum, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-2016. There was a delay of 77 days in filing the appeal, attributed to the assessee's elder age (70 years) and her daughter-in-law's critical medical condition requiring multiple surgeries and prolonged recovery. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, citing the assessee's negligence. The core of the appeal concerned the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent reassessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 12.04.2022, is valid, considering it was issued after a period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year 2015-2016, and therefore the assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed (Question of law, turning on Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act). Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the six-year period from the end of the assessment year, making it time-barred and invalid. The assessee relied on the decisions of the ITAT Hyderabad in Sudheer Parimala and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO & Anr. vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti. Revenue's contention: The time limits extended under the 5th and 6th provisos to Section 149(1) were available to the Assessing Officer, making the notice within the period of limitation. The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 149(1)(b),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 07.10.2026

PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant herein;

2.

The learned CIT (A) ought to have co

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 →