PENTYALA MADHAVI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD
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 148 on 29-04-2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, it was affirmed that notices issued after 01-04-2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid as the time limit under the old regime and TOLA had expired. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2015-16. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 29-04-2022, based on information about banking transactions aggregating Rs. 65.47 lakhs. Additions were made for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A and agricultural income treated as income from other sources, which were sustained by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 29-04-2022 was barred by limitation, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings invalid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139,Section 148,Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 149(1)(b),Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal713 citing469 ITR 46 · 2024 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B- SMC” Bench, Hyderabad
आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Pentyala Madhavi, 8-2-674/B/3/1/101, Ushassu Apartments, Road No.12, Banjarahills – 500034, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 12(1), Hyderabad.
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- 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