EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were bad in law as the conditions of Section 149(1)(b) were not fulfilled and the sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed pursuant to these notices were also vitiated.
What were the facts?
Following a search and seizure operation, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to the assessee for multiple assessment years. The assessee challenged these notices, arguing they were issued without jurisdiction and were bad in law due to non-compliance with Sections 148 and 149 of the Act, and that the approval under Section 151 was granted mechanically.
What were the issues?
The key issues were the validity of the notices issued under Section 148, the compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 149, and the proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority under Section 151.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 237 Taxmann.com 3787 citing237 Taxmann.com 378
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad DB-B‘Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.
Per Bench:
These five appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 20/06/2025, 21/06/2025, 23/06/2025, 25/06/2025 and 15/07/2025 respectively of the learned CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad for the A.Ys.2015-16 to 2019-20 arising from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, pursuant to the search & seizure operations dated 04/01/2023 in case of Exel Group of Companies including the assessee for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2019-20 respectively. Since common issued are raised in these group of
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026