MADHUMITA TRIPATHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1268/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation regarding the notice u/s 148 was raised for the first time. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi for AY 2013-14. The assessee raised grounds concerning the validity of the notice u/s 148, additions made on account of commodity trading, and reliance on an unshared investigation report.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation and the legality of additions made in commodity trading when the assessment order relied on an unshared investigation report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 250

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, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 05/02/2025

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Madhumita Tripathy Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) PAN:AHJPT3294M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri B Srinivasa Rao, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 05/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER

Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 12/11/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

At the outset we note that the assessee has raised the issue of validity of notice issued u/s 148 as barred by limitation in Ground No.1 of the grounds of appeal. This ground has been raised by the assessee for the first time without any application for seeking the permission of the Tribunal to raise an additional

Page 2 of 4 ground. The learned DR has vehemently opposed to the admission of the additional ground as this was neither raised by the assessee before the authorities below nor the assessee has made any application seeking permission to raise an additional ground. Since this additional ground has been raised by the assessee on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46/167 Taxmann.com 70, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has analyzed the limitation available with the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice u/s 148 in pursuant to the judgment in case of Union of India vs. Aashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the additional issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, then it has to be considered and decided by considering the relevant facts in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (Supra) as well as in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (Supra). The relevant facts regarding the issuance of notice u/s 148 and the limitation available with the Assessing Officer in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been examined by the authorities below because the assessee did not raise this issue prior to filing this appeal. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this issue is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for adjudication in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (Supra).

4.

The other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open and may be reconsidered by the learned CIT (A) as per the outcome of the legal ground raised by the assessee.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →