APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6022/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 January 2026AY 2013-1416 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the binding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal did not revive or enlarge limitation but merely stopped the clock, and the Revenue could only proceed within the time that was still surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. The Court held that the surviving or balance time-limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and June 30, 2021, with exclusions for time allowed to the assessee to respond. In the present case, the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 148A(d) on 28.07.2022 and issued the notice under section 148 on 29.07.2022, both of which were beyond the last permissible date of 20.06.2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed. The grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and left open.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Apcotex Industries Limited, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3), followed by a reassessment under section 147. Subsequently, based on information from the National E-Assessment Centre, reassessment proceedings were initiated again. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had purchased an office premises on 28.09.2012 for Rs. 5,49,04,095/-, which was sold on 27.09.2017. The AO believed depreciation of Rs. 54,90,410/- was wrongly claimed for AY 2013-14 as the property was not used for business, and notional rental income should have been offered. The AO disallowed depreciation and added notional rental income, resulting in a total addition of Rs. 96,41,159/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, considering the timeline of reassessment proceedings and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Assessee's Contention: The reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. The notice under section 148 is time-barred as it was not issued within the time limits provided under section 149, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal. The reopening was based on verification and roving inquiries, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Revenue's Contention: The reassessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and within the extended limitation provided under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The AO had tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening and the additions on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 250,Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUK

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. DR
Hearing: 07.01.2026Pronounced: 08.01.2026

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax

(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act,

1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2013-14, arising out of the assessment order dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assess

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 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →