INCOME TAX OFFICER, C R BUILDING vs. AGGARWAL ALLOY STEELS PVT LTD, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5074/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.07.2022, was indeed barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee raised a jurisdictional issue in their cross-objection, arguing that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation. This was based on a chronological list of events and a Supreme Court decision. The assessment was framed based on a second notice dated 29.07.2022.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, making the assessment order void ab initio.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.2.2026Pronounced: 12.2.2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee, both are arising out of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10280584 dated 7.04.2025. Since the appeal and Cross Objections both are inter-connected, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

First we deal with Assessee’s Cross Objection No. 219/Del/2025 (AY 2015-16).

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has raised jurisdictional issue in the cross objection that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. For this, assessee has only raised and argued the following Ground No. 4 : “That the order passed u/s. 148A(d) and notice issued u/s. 148, issued after the surviving period hence barred by limitation, in the light of the judgement of Higher Courts. So, the reopening and assessment order passed by the AO is void ab initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed.”

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment order is barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessment has been framed on the basis of second notice dated 29.7.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act. He explained the chronological list of relevant events, which reads as under:- Date Event 1st notice u/s. 148 issued 26.6.2021 Extended limitation as per the TOLA 30.6.2021 No. of days b/w First Notice u/s. 148 5 days (26.6.2021 to 30.6.2021) and 30.6.2021 (surviving period) Minimum period available with AO to 7 days issue order u/s. 148A(d) as per fourth proviso of section 149 Surviving time (extended to 7 days) 7 days Date of decision of Ashish Agarwal 4.5.2022 Notice u/s. 148A(b) issued on 27.5.2022 Time given 2 weeks (i.e. by 10.6.2022) Assessee’s reply 10.6.2022 Order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 17.6.2022 (i.e. 7 days after assessee’s had to be passed till reply dated 10.6.2022) Order u/s. 148A(d) & Second Notice 29.7.2022 (i.e. 42 days after the u/s. 148 issued on surviving / balance time period)

4.1 In view of aforesaid chronological list of relevant events, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Revenue had only 7 days to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act of the new regime, i.e. till 17.6.2022, after receipt of the response from the assessee on 10.6.2022 to the show cause notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act. However, undisputedly, in the present case, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29.7.2022, i.e., 42 days after the surviving/ balance time. So, notice u/s. 148 issued on 29.7.2022 is barred by limitation and hence bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ld. DR could not contorovert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR for the assessee.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and gone through the above noted facts and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and the same is therefore, set aside, as a result thereof, the assessment order is hereby quashed and accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner.

6.

As regards Revenue’s appeal No. 5074/Del/2025 (AY 2013-14) is concerned, since we have already decided the Assessee’s cross objection on the jurisdictional issue in favour of the Assessee by setting aside the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and subsequently, quashing the assessment order, thus, the issues raised in the Revenue’s appeal have become infructuous and dismissed the same accordingly.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →