DEEPAK MAHADEO BHOIR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3597/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 March 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act were barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, all consequential proceedings based on such invalid notice were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the assessment order was barred by limitation. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022, which the assessee contended was beyond the permissible time limits.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the reopening of assessment and the subsequent assessment order were valid and within the prescribed time limits, considering the amendments and judicial pronouncements regarding the reassessment procedures.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR
Hearing: 12.02.2026Pronounced: 06.03.2026

Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before we proceed to decide the substantive issue arising for consideration, it is necessary to provide a brief factual background. This appeal was earlier disposed of by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification/recall of the appellate order on the ground that while deciding the appeal, the Bench had failed to decide Ground No. 2.a and 2.b. While deciding the miscellaneous app

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →