Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The primary issue revolved around the validity of the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the surviving period prescribed by law, citing various judicial precedents. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and orders were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notices issued under Section 148 for reassessment were time-barred due to being issued beyond the prescribed surviving period, rendering them void ab initio.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 143(2), 250, 149, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by Assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15 both dated 24.03.2025 respectively.For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We treat appeal in ITA
ITA Nos.1183 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] No.1183/PUN/2025 as “lead case”. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
1. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO being barred by limitation, the same is invalid and hence needs to be quashed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 being without DIN, the same is invalid and hence the consequent assessment order passed by the AO is also invalid.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, there being no notice issued to the appellant by the AO under section 143(2), the assessment order passed by him is without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.
4. On the fact, circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO, representing the difference between AO's estimation of income at 8% of the turnover and the income declared by the appellant in her return of income, in spite of the fact that: a. The appellant has maintained proper books of account and had submitted all the details during the assessment proceeding, it was incorrect on the part of the AO to estimate income at 8%. b. The assessment of the appellant for AY 2018-19 and A Y 2019-20 are completed, on the same set of facts, accepting the book results without any additions thereto by the same NaFAC.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee argued only on the legal grounds. The ld.AR submitted that the order u/s.148A(d) and subsequent notice u/s.148 of the Act, are bad in law as they have been issued beyond the time permitted by the Act. Ld.AR invited our attention to a chart filed by him specifying & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] the dates. The ld.AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws :
Kolte Patil Integrated Township Ltd. in and 2011/PUN/2024. Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC) Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT in ITA No.6140/MUM/2024 and Smt Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi Vs. ACIT in ITA No.3013/CHNY/2024.
2.2 The Chart submitted by ld.AR is as under :
AY S. PARTICULARS 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No . 1 FIRST NOTICE U/S 148 30.06.2021 30.06.2021 30.06.2021 2 CLOSURE OF THIS PROCEEDINGS POST ASHISH AGARWAL 26.05.2022 26.05.2022 Submission of Information. S 26.05.2022 3 148A(b) Notice Time Limit given for submission 10.06.2022 10.06.2022 10.06.2022 4 Date of Reply by the appellant 13.06.2022 13.06.2022 13.06.2022 5 Order u/s 148A(d) 21.07.2022 21.07.2022 21.07.2022 PCIT-1, Pune PCIT-1, Pune Approval Authority PCIT-1, Pune 6 Notice u/s 148 22.07.2022 22.07.2022 22.07.2022 No DIN on the notice-Intimated by a separate letter of even date Rajiv Bansal Effect Time from 30.06.2021 0 0 0 Time Gap Between Reply filing Date and S.148A(d) Order 48 48 48 Whether Time Barred YES YES YES Para 108-113 Para 108-113 Para 108-113 7 Filing of Return in Response to 24.04.2023 13.04.2023 13.04.2023 notice u/s 148 8 Issue of Notice u/s 143(2) 13.05.2023 13.05.2023 No notice 9 Assessment order passed by NaFAC 26.05.2023 16.05.2023 16.05.2023 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] on A Turnover 4,78,71,406 1,09,64,032 2,31,13,246 B Returned Income 5,58,793 3,03,416 3,10,950 Percentage of Income to Sales 1.17% 2.77% 1.35% C Estimation by AO 8% 38,29,712 8,77,123 18,49,060 D Difference Addition 32,70,919 5,73,709 15,38,110 Addition 30,20,685 5,73,707 12,27,160 E Entire 8% Addition - - - 2.2 Ld.AR submitted that the notice u/s.148 is bad in law.
Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the appeal no.1183/PUN/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 the notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.06.2021. The proceedings-initiated u/s.148 were closed on 17.01.2023 being duplicate proceedings. Copy of the letter dated 17.01.2023 for A.Y.2013-14 is at page no.3 of the paper book.
4.1 A notice u/s.148A(b) for A.Y.2013-14 was issued on 26.05.2022. The said notice is at page no.4 to 7 of the paper book. The said notice is issued by ITO, Ward-5, Sangli. Assessee was granted time upto 10.06.2022. Assessee filed her submission on & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] 13.06.2022. Then, an order u/s.148A(d) was passed on 21.07.2022 for A.Y.2013-14. Copy of the said order is at page no.9 to 17 of the paper book. The order u/s.148A(d) was passed with the approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-Pune.
4.2 The ITAT Chennai in the case of Smt.Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi Vs. ACIT in vide order dated 03.07.2025 has held as under : “10. The Submission made before us is that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022, for AY-2013-14, in the case of the assessee is time barred as it was issued beyond the surviving period as specified in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The relevant dates in the case of assessee are as follows:- Serial Particulars Date 1) Date of issue of Notice u/s 148 of OLD regime 30.06.2021 during the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 2) Date of supply of information as per judgment of 02.06.2022 Asish Agarwal 3) Date of reply filed by the Assessee for the above 11.06.2022 4) Date of passing of order u/s 148A(d) 28.07.2022 5) Date of issue of notice u/s 148 of New Regime 28.07.2022 11. The manner of computation of surviving period and limitation, as provided in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), are as follows: 1st. Surviving period is calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30th June, 2021 (Para-108) 2nd. The surviving period starts ticking from the date of receipt of response by AO (Para-111 & 112) 3rd. The AO has to consider response of the Assessee u/s 148A(c), pass order u/s 148A(d) and issue notice u/s 148 of New regime, all these procedures has to happen within the surviving period (Para-111) 4th. Only notices issued within the surviving period calculated from the date of receipt of response by AO is valid. The notices issued beyond surviving period is time & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] barred and liable to be set-aside (Para-113 and 114(g) & 114(h)) 12. Applying the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the instant case and adopting a conservative computation, notice issued u/s.148 of the Act will time barred by 35 days as detailed below (The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, supra does not specify the application of fourth proviso of section 149(1), which governs time limit for notice u/s.148 of the Act. Still in the below computation, we have taken the outer limit of 7 days extension) Serial PARTICULARS COMPUTATION DATES 1 Date of issue of Original Notice A 30-06-2021 u/s 148 within TOLA Period 2 Last date of TOLA B 30-06-2021 3 Balance (On Inclusive method) C = B -A 1 4 Minimum days available as per D 7 4th Proviso of Section 149(1) 5 Then SURVIVING PERIOD E (Higher of C & 7 (Para-108 to 113 of Rajeev D) Bansal) 6 Date of response filed by F 11-06-2022 Appellant to 148A(b) notice 7 Date on which Period of two G 16-06-2022 weeks allowed to assessee to respond to notice ends (deemed stay as per 3rd proviso to section 149 and Para 114 (g) of Rajeev Bansal) 8 Last date for issuing notice u/s H = E + G 23-06-2022 148 [i.e., 16.06.2022+ 7 days] 9 Actual date of issuance of notice H 28-07-2022 u/s 148 10 Then Notice is time Barred by I = H - G 35 (Para 114 (H) of Rajeev Bansal) 13.The judicial precedents upholding the above proposition are as follows:- i. Judgment of Jurisdictional Madras High Court in Mrs.Thulasidass Prabavathi Vs ITO [W.P.No.19010 of 2022] (Para-16 & 17) ii. Judgment in ACIT Vs Amit Jain SLP (Supreme Court) (Civil) Diary No.32211/2024 (303 taxman 163) (Para-2 to 4) iii. Judgment of KULWANT SINGH & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (341 CTR (P&H) 700) (Para-6 & 8) & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] iv. Judgment of Delhi High Court in RAM BALRAM BUILDHOME PVT. LTD Vs ITO & Ors [W.P.(C) 16232/2024] (reported in (2025) 9 NYPCTR 157 (Delhi) ) (Para-65 to 73) v. Judgment of Delhi High Court in KANWALJEET KAUR & ORS Vs ACIT Delhi[W.P.(C) 3908/2023] (Para-24 & 28) vi. Order of ITAT Raipur in M/s. Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Vs The ITO [ITA No.307/RPR/2024] (Para-23 to 25) vii. Order of ITAT Raipur in DCIT VS Shri Vinay Agrawal [ITA No: 29 & 30/RPR/2025] (Para-19 & 20) viii. Order of ITAT Mumbai in ACIT Vs Ramchand ThakurdasJhamtani [ITA No. 3553/MUM/2024] (Para-9 & 10) ix. Order of ITAT Mumbai in ITO Vs Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain [ITA No. 3553/MUM/2024] (Para-22 & 23) x. Order of ITAT Mumbai in Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs DCIT [ITA No.6140/MUM/2024] (Para-30 & 31) xi. Order of ITAT Mumbai, in DCIT Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd in ITA No-5743 & 5745 of 2024, reported in 173 taxmann.com 582 (para-10.2) xii. Order of ITAT Pune in DCIT VS Kolte Patil [ITA Nos. 2011 & 2023/Pune/2024; Asst. yrs. 2014-15 & 2016-17], reported in (2025) 235 TTJ (Pune) 113 : (2025) 39 NYPTTJ 552 (Pune) (Para-45) 14. The above judicial precedents have categorically upheld the above proposition and has held the notice to be time barred if they are beyond surviving period. We notice that ITAT Pune SMC Bench, in the case of Pushpadevi Shivlal Rathi Vs ITO in for AY-2014-15, had held against the assessee. However, subsequently co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in the case of DCIT VS Kolte Patil reported in (2025) 235 TTJ (Pune) 113 had decided the issue in favour of assessee.
Report of AO dated 09.06.2025 before us confirms the relevant dates and AO has not contradicted the ratio laid down in case Rajeev Bansal, supra. The AO has only stressed that the 148A(d) order and the notice u/s 148 of new regime, both dated 28.07.2022, were within the period, as specified in 148A(d), of one month from the end of the month in which reply is received. However, this issue has been elaborately dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) and also by other judicial forums. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court at Para-71 in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome (Supra), has held that the & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] time available u/s 148A(d) was “necessarily truncated” and the same was required to be passed within the surviving period.
Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Mrs.Thulasidass Prabavathi (Supra) has held the notice u/s 148 issued beyond surviving period to be time barred. In Para-4 & 5 of the judgment, clearly specify the dates and events. In that case, the notice u/s 148 of old regime was on 21.06.2021, the reply was filed by assessee on 31.05.2022 and the order u/s 148A(d) / 148 Notice was issued on 30.06.2022. Even though as per 148A(d), the AO had time of one month from the end of the month to pass the order (In this case such time happens to be 30.06.2022), the same was truncated to the extent of surviving period and the notice was held to be time barred. Hence,legal contention raised by Ld.AR is squarely covered in favour of assessee.
In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court, we hold that the notice dated 28.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the New Regimein respect of assessment year 2013-14 is time barred and re- assessment order pursuant to the same is set-aside.” 4.3 Similar view has been expressed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT in for A.Y. 2013-14 and for A.Y.2014-15 vide order dated 13.03.2025. “20. Therefore, the surviving/balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30/06/2021. Since, in the present case, we find that the period of 6 yearsfrom the end of the relevant assessment year expires on 31/03/2020, which falls within the time period from 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021, in order to compute the surviving/balance time as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-108, it is relevant to note the following dates:-
S.No. Particulars Dates 1 Period of Limitation Under the Old 31.03.2020 Act 2 First Notice issed u/s 148 29.06.2021 3 Extended Limitation as per the TOLA 30.06.2021 4 Surviving Time 2 Days
ITA Nos.1183 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A]
5 Date of Decision of Ashish Agarwal 04.05.2022 6 Notice u/s 148A(b) 24.05.2022 7 Time Given 30 Days 8 Assessee’s Reply 24.06.2022 9 Order u/s 148A(d) 28.07.2022 10 Second Notice u/s 148 28.07.2022
Therefore, computing the surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Revenue had only 2 days (i.e., between 29/06/2021 to 30/06/2021) to issue notice under section 148 of the Act of the new regime in the present case, i.e. till 26/06/2022, after receipt of the response from the assessee on 24/06/2022 to the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. However, undisputedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 28/07/2022, i.e., 32 days after the surviving/balance time period as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).
We find that even if the benefit of the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act is granted to the Revenue, since the remaining period in the present case, after the exclusion of time period as provided in the third proviso to section 149, is less than 7 days, even then the notice dated 28/07/2022 undersection 148 of the Act was issued much beyond the 7 days’ extension provided in the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act.
As regards the other contention of the learned DR that as per the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has time period of one month from the end of the month in which the reply is received from the assessee, and therefore, since in the present case, the assessee filed its reply on 24/06/2022, the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is within the limitation period, we find that similar argument of the Revenue was negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v/s Income-tax Officer, reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi), by observing as follows: – “69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d)
& 1184/PUN/2025 [A] of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022.
Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation.
It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was received. Thus, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act (both dated 30.07.2022) are within the prescribed period. This contention is without merit as it does not take into account that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act necessarily required to be completed within the period available for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the time available to the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was necessarily truncated and the same was required to be passed on or before 12.07.2022. The fourth proviso to Section 149 of the Act did not come into play as the time period available for the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was in excess of the seven days.
72. In view of the above, we find merit in Mr. Sehgal's contention that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of limitation.
73. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act; the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act; and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 framed under Section 147 of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14, are set aside. Pending application is also disposed of.”
ITA Nos.1183 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A]
In view of the above, we find merit in Mr. Sehgal's contention that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of limitation.
The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act; the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act; and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 framed under Section 147 of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14, are set aside. Pending application is also disposed of.”
Therefore, in view of the findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the decision cited supra, we do not find any merits in the aforesaid submission of the learned DR, and the reliance placed by the learned DR upon the decision of the SMC Bench of the Tribunal in Pushpadevi Shivlal Rathi v/s ITO, in ITA No. 1995/Pun./2024, dated 04/12/2024 is also of no relevance.
Therefore, having considered the provisions of the Act, pre as well as post the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the TOLA, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), we are of the considered view that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is barred by limitation period specified under section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed.
Since the relief has been granted to the assessee on the aforenoted jurisdictional aspect, the other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are rendered academic, and therefore, are left open.”
4.4 The facts referred in the case of Smt.Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi Vs. ACIT(supra) are exactly identical to the facts of the present case i.e. Heena Irfan Bepari in ITA No.1183/PUN/2025. In & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] the case of Heena Irfan Bepari, first notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.06.2021 and order u/s.148A(d) was passed on 21.07.2022, similarly, in the case of Smt.Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi Vs. ACIT(supra) first notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.06.2021 and order u/s.148A(d) was passed on 28.07.2022. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Chennai Bench(supra) and decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench(supra), we hold that notice u/s.148 dated 22.07.2022 for A.Y.2013-14 is time barred. Hence, the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B dated 26.05.2023 is bad in law. Accordingly, the Legal Ground raised by the Assessee is allowed.
4.5 Since we have allowed the Legal Ground, we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the Assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.2, 3 and 4 are dismissed as unadjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] No.1184/PUN/2025” also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 July, 2025.