KALPESHKUMAR JERAMBHAI SANGANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYALKalpeshkumar Jerambhai Sangani, Plot No. 3, Sr. No. 69, Kathwada, Khodiyarnagar Society, GIDC, Bhagwati Nagar, Nava Nikol, Ahmedabad-382430
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated
29.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year
2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.01.2025 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
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 30.07.2022 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.
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 is in the Kalpeshkumar Jerambhai Sangani Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– violation of provision of Section 151 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) Judgement dated 3rd October, 2024 as approval taken by AO u/s 151 of the Act from Principal commissioner-1, Ahmedabad is incorrect as three years have elapsed from relevant assessment year.
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 Juri ictional Assessing officer is in violation of Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. …….”
At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the appeal stands covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and is barred by limitation. On going through the facts on record, no contrary facts could be found. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed on juri ictional grounds.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.09.2025. (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL)
VICE-PRESIDENT
Ahmedabad; Dated 22.09.2025
**btk
आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.