Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) related to Assessment Year 2017-18. The core issue revolves around the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 31.08.2022 was beyond the prescribed limitation period and therefore, invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this notice were deemed void ab initio.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred and invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
Sections Cited
148, 151A, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.06.2025 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–
2. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by AO on 31.08.2022 is time barred as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) Judgement dated 3rd October, 2024 and thus deserves to be quashed.
3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that Notice issued u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing officer is in violation of Section 151A of the Act and CBCT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 4 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.08.2022 is void and bad in law as it was issued without DIN. 5 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition on account of alleged unexplained money amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, when no such addition is called for.
6. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
The details relating to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act are summarized as under:
Sr. Particulars Date 1 Deemed date of show cause notice u/s. 30.06.2021 148A9b) (date of issuance of original notice u/s. 148) 2. Due date of issuance of notice 30.06.2021 3. No. of days between date of original 148 1 Day and due date of issuance of noice u/s.148 (deemed to be stayed, thus added in the total limitation) 4. Date of filing of response to notice 27.07.2022 Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– u/s.148A(b) 5. Date of limitation for issuing notice 27.07.2022 + 7 days u/s.148 = 03.08.2022 It is evident from the above that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.08.2022, which is beyond the limitation period as prescribed under the law. Therefore, the notice is time-barred and invalid
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) dated 03.10.2024, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 31.08.2022 is time-barred and, therefore, invalid in the eyes of law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of such notice are void ab initio and deserve to be quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.11.2025. S /- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT () Ahmedabad; Dated 14.11.2025 MV Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4–