GOPAL KRISHAN BANSAL, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD -1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, SIRHIND

PDF

ITA 614/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)10 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's assessment for AY 2013-14 was reopened under Section 148 based on information about alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2.63 Cr. The Assessing Officer made a 100% addition under Section 69A, which the CIT(A) restricted to 12.5%. The assessee filed an appeal, raising an additional legal ground challenging the validity and timeliness of the Section 148 notice, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal.

Held

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground and found that the Section 148 notice, issued on 29.07.2022, was beyond the permissible last date of 28.06.2022 as per the fourth proviso to Section 149 and binding Apex Court judgments. The issuance of the notice was deemed without jurisdiction and time-barred, rendering the reassessment void-ab-initio. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

Key Issues

The key legal issue was the validity and timeliness of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment.

Sections Cited

Section 148, Section 149, Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 69A, Section 149(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: The present appeal filed by the Assessee and cross appeal filed by the Revenue are against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC Delhi dt. 05/03/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.

First, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee in for the Assessment Year 2013-14, raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the purchases made from two parties as allegedly bogus as under: i. M/s Shiv Bhole Kripa 0.69 crore ii. M/s Kanak Overseas 1.01 crore iii). M/s Gitansh International 0.93 crore 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in re-opening the case u/s 148 as there were no proper reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and only relied upon the information received from the investigation wing.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance in respect of the purchases made from above said parties to the extent of 12.05% of the total purchases of Rs.2,63,00,000/- as made from the above said parties and sustaining an addition of Rs. 56,26,047/-.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while confirming the part addition has failed to appreciate that the sales against such purchases have been made and there were no case of inflation in the purchases as made from the above said parties.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the said disallowance of 12.5% is not justified, since books of accounts which are duly audited have not been rejected 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off."

By way of letter, dated 12 January 2026 filed before us an additional ground of appeal has been taken. The assessee contended that this is a legal ground of appeal and, as such, the permission was sought to admit this ground of appeal in the light of the Judgment of National Tharmal Plant, 229 ITR 383 and the additional grounds of appeal reads as under:-