M/S KAMLA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BIKANER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for re-assessment was indeed barred by limitation. The Court referred to Section 149 of the Act, which stipulates that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) of Section 149. The Court found that the petitioner's case did not fall within the ambit of clause (b). Therefore, as the period of four years had elapsed from the assessment year 1994-95, the notice issued to the petitioner was barred by limitation. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 12.03.2001 and made the interim order absolute. The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s Kamla Construction Company, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer Ward – II, Bikaner. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued in violation of Section 149 of the Act, as it was barred by limitation. The assessment year in question was 1994-95. The petitioner argued that the four-year period for issuing such a notice had elapsed, and their case did not fall under the exceptions provided in Section 149(1)(b). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Union of India, supported the impugned notice. The High Court considered the submissions and the relevant record.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95 is barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 148 for the assessment year 1994-95 is four years, as prescribed by Section 149 of the Act. The petitioner contended that since this four-year period had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, and their case did not fall under the exception provided in Section 149(1)(b), the notice issued was hopelessly barred by limitation. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 16/09/2026
The petitioner herein has called in question the notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same has been issued in violation of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 as it was barred by limitation.
Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit for issuing notice as per Section 149 of the Act of 1961 for the relevant assessment year i.e. 1994-95 is four years. If the period of four years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, and unless the case of the assessee falls under clause (b) of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, then only the notice for re-assessment can be issued against the assessee, (Uploaded on 17/09/2026 at 01:57:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:45 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:44689-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1495/2001] whereas the case of the appellant-Company does not fall under Clause (b) of the Act of 1961, thus, the notice issued to the appellant was hopelessly barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order.
We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
Admittedly, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for re-assessment is barred by limitation as the time limit prescribed under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 is four years. For ready reference Section 149 of the Act of 1961 is reproduced as under:- “(1) No notice under Section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year. (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) (b) if four years, but no more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. Explanation – In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of explanation 2 of Section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section (5). (3) If the person on whom a notice under Section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non- resident under Section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance (Uploaded on 17/09/2026 at 01:57:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:45 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:44689-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1495/2001] of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year.”
A bare perusal of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 clearly depicts that no notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 can be issued for the relevant assessment year, if the period of four years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the case falls under clause (b) of Section 149 of the Act of 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that his case does not fall within the ambit of clause (b) and, as such, after expiry of period of four years from the assessment year 1994-95, the notice issued to the petitioner is barred by period of limitation as provided under Section 149 of the Act of 1961. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice dated 12.03.2001 is hereby quashed as set aside and the interim order dated 08.05.2001 passed by this Court is made absolute.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ 106/Payal Rani/Sanjay Solanki Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/09/2026 at 01:57:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:45 AM)
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026