YANFENG INDIA AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2061/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 October 2026AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 dated 31st July 2022 was not issued within the ‘survival period’, as conceded by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the AO's report, in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, and the Gujarat High Court's order in Dhanraj Govindram Kella, indicated that the notice was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 based on this time-barred notice were considered void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found no need to address the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee due to this finding. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yanfeng India Automotive Interior Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 after issuing a notice under Section 148. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, the Revenue provided the reopening material. An order under Section 148A(d) was passed, and a fresh notice under Section 148 was issued. The sole disallowance was Rs. 2,67,92,911/- for additional depreciation on assets used for less than 180 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for AY 2015-16 and noting a lack of hearing opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31st July 2022, is time-barred in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, and consequently, whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are void-ab-initio. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 is time-barred, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which would render the reassessment proceedings void-ab-initio. The assessee also contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided by the CIT(A) and challenged the merits of the disallowance. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Assessing Officer's report submitted by the Sr. DR, conceded that the notice under Section 148 dated 31st July 2022 was not issued within the ‘survival period’ as per the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, and also referred to the Gujarat High Court's order in Dhanraj Govindram Kella.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 250,Section 149(1)

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 Amol Mahajan, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri Tapas Ram Misra, Judicial Member ITA No: 2061/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Yanfeng India Automotive The Dy. CIT, Interior Systems Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1) Vs Income Tax Office, Plot No. Av 21, Sanand Vejalpur Gidc-II, Village Bol, Ahmedabad-380015, Sanand, Ahmedabad- Gujarat 382110, Gujarat PAN: AAACY5078P (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Amol Mahajan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 20-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 15-10-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 25.08.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

2.

The assessment in this case was made u/s 147 of the Act after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29-06-2021. Subsequently, pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal: [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), information and material relied upon by the Revenue for reopening was provided on 24-05-2022, order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 31-07-2022 and fresh notice u/s 148 was issued on 31- 07-2022.

3.

On merits, the only disallowance made in the order u/s 147 was additional depreciation amounting to Rs.2,67,92,911/- from claimed in Asst. Year 2016-17 for assets allegedly put to use for less than 180 days.

4.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the reopening to be time-barred and also challenged disallowance of additional depreciation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that this issue was settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 on payment of disputed the amount of Rs.99,81,497/- for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee, it appears, was not provided with an opportunity of hearing apart from enabling the communication window on 01-08-2023.

5.

Before us, the assessee has challenged the impugned appellate order on the issues of the notice u/s 148 being time-barred, no opportunity of hearing provided by the CIT(A) and the merits of the disallowance.

6.

Vide application dated 17-06-2026 the assessee has raised a specific additional ground which reads as under: “Ground No. 9: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31 July 2022 is time-barred in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and consequently, the reassessment 2 proceedings under section 147 of the Act are void-ab-initio, had in law and therefore liable to be quashed.” 7. On the direction of the Bench, the Ld. Sr. D.R. had sought a report from the A.O. on the issue of limitation having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). In the course of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted the response of the A.O. vide letter dated 19-08-2026. Relevant extract of this response are as under: “3. A.O Report/Surviving time Calculation: The issues involved in this case are covered in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's order in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-(2), Surendranagar. In the case referred supra, Hon'ble High court of Gujarat has disposed of the petition in favour of the assessee keeping in view the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Judgment vide Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024 in case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). The surviving time calculation in the case of Yanfeng India Automotive Interior Systems Pvt Ltd, PAN: AAACY5078P (AY 2016- 17) is as under: Sr. No. Proceedings/Notice Date 1 Notice u/s 148 issued under old 29.06.2021 regime 2 Date Date of notice issued u/s 24.05.2022 148A(b) in pursuance of Ashish Agrawal vs UOI (information provided) 3 Due date to file the reply in 11.06.2022 response to notice issued u/s 148A(b) 4 Reply furnished by the assessee on 07.06.2022 5 Time that was available to re-issue 2 days notice as per TOLA limit (Till 30.06.2021) 6 Time excluded as per Rajeev 30.06.2021 to Bansal & others vs UOI 07.06.2022 (Final reply date) 7 Extended time to be given as per 7 days from fourth proviso to section 149(1) as 07.06.22 amended by the Finance Act 2021 i.e. and as per Rajeev Bansal & others 14.06.2022 vs UOI 8 Date of order passed u/s 148A(d) 31.07.2022 (in new regime) 9 Date of re-issue of notice u/s 148 31.07.2022 10 whether notice issued within No 'survival period' 4. The notices referred hereinabove are enclosed herewith for perusal.”

8.

It is evident from the above that the A.O. has fairly conceded that the notice u/s 148 dated 31-07-2022 was not issued within the “survival period”. Since the notice u/s 148 was barred by limitation, the assessment u/s 147 based on that notice is void ab-initio and accordingly quashed. In view of this there is no need to deal with other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

9.

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

This Order is pronounced on 15/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (TAPAS RAM MISRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : True Copy Dated 15/10/2026 Rajesh आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद 4

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →