Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were identical to the case of Narendra Maganlal Purohit Vs. DCIT, where the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was held to be barred by limitation and bad in law.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation.
Sections Cited
250, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahavir Agro Industries Vs ITO, Ward – 3 C/1, B-456/2, New DIDC, Room No. 206, 2nd Kabilpor, Navsari - Floor, Income tax Office, 396445 Charpool, Awabaugh, PAN – AALFM6648R Navsari. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajesh Upadhyay, AR Revenue by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 10.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16.
At the very outset, Ld. AR has pressed legal ground 2. wherein it was submitted that the notice issued by the revenue u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and in this regard relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that for the year under consideration the initial notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 12.05.2021 and thereafter in consequence judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of Narendra Maganlal Purohit Vs. DCIT. Another notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2022. Since the facts of the present case are identical with the facts contained in the case of Narendra Maganlal Purohit Vs. DCIT decided by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Narendra Maganlal Purohit Vs. DCIT, we held that the notice issued by the revenue u/s 148 of the Act is clearly bared by limitation and thus bad in law and thus consequently order passed by the AO stands quashed.
Since we have allowed legal ground with regard to reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic and are kept open.