V. MANGALAKSHMI,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVANNAMALAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 867/CHNY/2025Status: FixedITAT Chennai02 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President)1 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 noted that the Supreme Court, in the cases of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., held that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped. Since the notice in this case was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, it was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue revolves around a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 02.04.2022.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 on 02.04.2022 is bad in law due to being issued beyond the time limit, in light of Supreme Court pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ (SMC

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Hearing: 02.07.2025Pronounced: 03.07.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

1.

2 -: 2. At the outset, I noticed assessee has filed additional grounds which read as follows:- 1. The Petitioner/Appellant is advised to submit that the issue of notice u/s 148 dated 02.04.2022 is bad in law and suffers from want of Jurisdiction.

2.

The appellant is further advised to submit that the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., Vs CBDT (2025) 476 ITR 369(SC) following its own decision in Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal (2024) (in para 5 of its order) has held as under - : 5. As the Revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment 2015-16. all notices issued on or after April1,2021 will have to be dropped as year they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act 2020)"

3. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 148 not having been issued within the specified time limit the notice and the consequential assessment order deserve to be quashed.

4 The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal and render justice.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltds., vs. CBDT reported in [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC), notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 02.04.2022 is bad in law, as the same has been issued beyond the time limit.

4.

The Ld.DR was duly heard.

3 -: 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), had made a concession in the aforesaid judgment that for the assessment year 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they do not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act 2020) [TOLA]. The concession made by the Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) read as follows:- “The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."

6.

In the instant case, the assessment year being 2015-16 and the notice u/s.148 of the Act having been issued only on 02.04.2022, the concession of Revenue will have application to the facts of the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court later in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., (supra), have held as under:- 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this court to a three-judge Bench decision of this court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus :

4 -: "19. f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."

5.

As the Revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period

7.

In view of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the concession of the Revenue since the notice has been issued under the New Regime beyond the time limit (notice issued on 02.04.2022), the reassessment order pursuant to the same is quashed. It is ordered accordingly.

8.

Since I have quashed the reassessment order, the other grounds are not adjudicated.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd July, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →