Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18, challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The core contention was that the Section 148 notice, issued on 30.07.2022, was time-barred based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and that the Section 151 approval was flawed due to the three-year lapse from the assessment year.
Held
The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded the appeal was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, rendering the reassessment time-barred. Finding no contradictory facts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by a Section 148 notice were time-barred, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and compliance with Sections 151 and 151A of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 151, 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R 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.
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.
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 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.
3. 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 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 Jurisdictional 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 jurisdictional grounds.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.09.2025.