VIVEK RAMASWAMY PUTHUCODE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground that the notice under section 148 was barred by limitation, as it was a pure legal issue. Relying on Supreme Court judgments and concessions made by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the notice issued for AY 2015-16 on 25.04.2022 under the new regime was beyond the permissible time limit.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return for AY 2015-16. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notices under section 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return admitting income, but the AO made additions towards long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) provided partial relief, directing verification of an investment for deduction.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 dated 25.04.2022 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 54,Section 149(1),Section 149(1)(b),Section 147,Section 153A,Section 153C,Section 132,Section 132A,Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes70 citing476 ITR 369 · 2025 · SC
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal41 citing2024 SCC OnLine 754 · 2024
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 15.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for AY 2015-16. T
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.
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 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026