Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-2014. The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The notice was purportedly signed on 31.03.2021 but issued on 01.04.2021.
Held
The Tribunal held that the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 148 is governed by Section 149 of the Act, which specifies the period for issuance, not signing. Since the notice was issued on 01.04.2021, it was beyond the permissible time limit.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was within the prescribed limitation period.
Sections Cited
148, 149
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHIBENCH,RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
ĮċĊĭŊįēćıकीओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate �ȡ�è��ȧj � ȯ/Revenue by : Shri Khubchand Pandya, Sr. DR Ǖ��ȡ_�ȧ�ȡ�ȣ�/ Date of Hearing : 30/04/2025 �Ȫ��ȡ�ȧ�ȡ�ȣ�/Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, dated 25/01/2024, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060142968(1) for the assessment year 2013-2014.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been signed admittedly on 31.03.2021. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 7 of the paper book, which is a copy of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, which reads as follows :-
Ld. AR further drew our attention to page 12 of the paper book, which is a copy of the ordersheet showing the notice for the e- proceedings. It was the submission that the notice has been issued only on 01.04.2021., The said order sheet noting reads as follows :-
It was the submission that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued only on 01.04.2021 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC), is barred by limitation and the consequential assessment order would also be liable to be annulled.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the notice has been signed on 31.03.2021. He vehemently supported the orders of Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. The time limit for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is provided in the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. The words used in Section 149 of the Act is, “no notice u/s.148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year………” The words used is not “signed” but “issued”. A perusal of the e- proceedings notice clearly shows that the notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be issued only on 01.04.2021 and consequently the same is liable to be treated as beyond time. This view of ours also finds support from the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). As we have already held that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is beyond the limitation provided, therefore, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act in the impugned appeal is treated as barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order, as a consequence of the said notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, becomes bad in law and consequently the same stands annulled.