Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessee's case for AY 2014-15 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 27.7.2022, concerning a property transaction of Rs.1,46,47,920/-, with the assessee's share being Rs.16,27,546/-. This reopening occurred after six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without considering merits, citing non-representation and non-submission of documents.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as it was done beyond the six-year period stipulated for cases where the escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, thus violating Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the ensuing reassessment order were quashed.
Key Issues
The key issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148, specifically regarding compliance with the time limits prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act when the alleged escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 149(1)(b), 142(1), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘ SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI & RAJESH KUMAR
Date of Hearing : 08/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09/09 /2025 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 14.06.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2013- 14/10290827 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The appeal is time barred by 277 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 2.7.2025, stating that the appeal order was received by him on 14.6.2024 and the same was handed over to the Advocate Mr Nishakar Panda for filing the appeal. The assessee was under the P a g e 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2011-12 impression that the appeal must have been filed within the due date. However, on 20.6.2025, when the assessee received the notice for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by hand, the matter was enquired about the status of filing of appeal before the tribunal . Only then it came to be informed by the advocate that by mistake the appeal order was kept somewhere and not traceable. Therefore , it is submitted that the delay has arisen due to inaction and mistake of the Advocate and the assessee should not have been punished. It was accordingly prayed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
In reply, ld DR opposed the condonation petition.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the condonation petition, I am satisfied that there was reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly by the assessee. Therefore, I condone the delay of 277 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The sole grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against the action of the ld CIT(A) in upholding the assessment order, which is illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction as the same is violation to provisions stipulated under section 149(1)(b) of the Act.
Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Act on 27.7.2022 . In response to the said notice, the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter, notice u/s.142(1) was issued on 10.1.2023 calling upon the assessee to explain the transaction regarding sale of properties of Rs.1,46,47,920/-. According to the assessee, the share of the assessee is only 1:9 persons, which comes to approx.. Rs.16,27,546/-. However, the Assessing Officer reopened this case by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 27.7.2022, which is apparently after a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years, which is in clear violation of provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act.
In appeal, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving any concrete findings on this issue on merits on the ground that the assessee had not represented in the appellate proceedings or filed any written submissions.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record including the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on 27.7.2022, we note that the case has been reopened after a period six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which is in clear violation of section 149(1)(b) of the Act and is in fact wrongly reopened as the income added to the income of the assessee is only Rs.16,27,546/-, whereas the section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the time limit for issuing a reassessment notice, relates to the escapement of income of ₹50 lakhs or more. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and quash P a g e 3 | 4 Assessment Year : 2011-12 the notice u/s.148 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order in pursuance to notice u/s.148 of the Act also quashed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/9/2025.
Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) Accountant Member Kolkata: Dated 09/09/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Amiya Shankar Ghar,Ward No.08, Dewan Bazar, Sonamukhi, PO: Sonamukhi, Dist: Bankura 2. The Respondent : Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3(1), BaNKURA, po: Kendudihi, Dist: Bankura 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order