SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Consequently, the assessment was invalid, and no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2012-13 on September 30, 2012. A notice under section 143(2) was issued on October 15, 2013.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) due to being time-barred. The secondary issue was the leviability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on additions made in an invalid assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Bhavnesh SainiDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi dated 25.10.2016.
The assessee prayed for admission of additional ground on the issue of validity of notice u/s 143(2). Since, the additional grounds taken up by the assessee is purely in nature, the same have been admitted.
The relevant facts of case for adjudication are that, Return of income for the AY 2012-13 was filed on 30.09.2012. E-filing acknowledgment No. 506966441300912 & 440/Del/2017 2 Bhushan Lal Sawhney Date of issue of notice u/s 143(2) as per the Assessment Order dated 02.03.2015 page no.1- 15.10.2013 Provision of section 143(2) reads as under: “Section 143......... (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return:
Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.]” Prior to the amendment, the time limit was 12 months.
From the facts above, we find that the notice issued on 15.10.2013 against the return filed on 30.09.2012 is barred by limitation and hence assessment completed consequently cannot be held to be valid. We also hold that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable on the additions made in an invalid assessment. & 440/Del/2017 3 Bhushan Lal Sawhney 5. As a result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/04/2021.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026