Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal by the assessee was filed 498 days late due to the previous accountant resigning without handing over crucial information. The assessee's counsel argued this was an unavoidable delay beyond their control. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 498 days in filing the appeal, finding it to be due to reasonable administrative reasons and not a deliberate attempt by the assessee. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the notice u/s 148 being barred by limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is barred by limitation and if the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued within the prescribed time limit.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 149(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 25.01.2024 for the AY 2016-17.
At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 498 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained that the erstwhile accountant of the assessee resigned without handing over the login credentials and information regarding pending proceedings to the management and the assessee only came to know about the CIT(A)’s order when the new accountant after recovering the e-mail and password linked to the company access from the ITBA portal for finalization of accounts. Due 2.1. We after considering the submissions made by the ld. Authorized Representative and facts placed before us, we are of the view that the delay of 498 days in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause as explained by the assessee. The delay was due to administrative reasons and there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee for delay in filing. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector , Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).Therefore in the interest of justice and fair play, we hereby condone the delay in fling the appeal. The appeal will now be heard on merits in the following paras.
The assessee has raised additional ground qua the notice u/s 148 of the Act being time barred by limitation in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024, which read as under:-
“That the ld. AO erred in passing an order was u/s 148A(d) of the Act dt.29.7.2022 and issuing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 and 29.07.2012 Assessment Year 2016-17 which is beyond the surviving period of limits of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
The facts in brief are that the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.06.2021, for the impugned assessment year which is A.Y. 2016- 17, under the erstwhile reassessment regime. The extended period of limitation available by virtue of taxation and other laws (deduction and amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) expired on 30.06.2021 subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543) vide order dated 04.05.2022. The said notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.06.2021, was treated as show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act subsequent to the above decision. In compliance Pgs of Paper S. No. Particulars Dates Book-II 1. First Notice issued u/s 148 29.06.2021 01 2. Period of limitation as per TOLA 30.06.2021 3. Surviving Period 2 days 4. Information provided by AO as per 24.05.2022 1A-4 direction in case of Ashish Agarwal 5. Assessee find reply on 14.06.2022 5 6. Letter was issued on 21.06.2022 No further response 6 wherein the assessee was requested was filled to file the response on 22.06.2022 7. Since surviving period is less than 7 29.06.2022 days by virtue of the proviso to i. Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs. Income-tax Department reported in (2025) 174 taxmann.com 925 (Delhi) ii. Dhanraj Govindram Kella Vs. ITO, reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 194 (Gujarat) iii. Ashitkumar Satischandra Patel Vs. ITO reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 188 (Gujarat)
4.2. We therefore, respectfully following the decisions, quash the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as barred by limitation and also consequent assessment framed by the ld. AO. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.01.2026.