THE IMPERIAL CONDOMINIUM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that the new provisions of Section 149(1)(b) apply retrospectively. It was held that reassessment notices can only be issued if the escaped income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, and if it is less, such notices, even if issued under the old regime's time limit, must be dropped.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee's counsel argued that the reopening initiated under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as the escaped income of Rs. 7,54,000/- was below the mandatory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs required for reopening under the new provisions effective from April 1, 2021.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid when the escaped income is below the prescribed threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs as per the new provisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal713 citing167 Taxmann.com 70 · 2024 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & MS. PADMAVATHY S
Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing 07.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 08.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 02.08.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 2016-17.
At the very outset, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that as per the new provisions u/s 149 Sub Clause (1) Sub Clause 2 The Imperial Condominium, Mumbai
(b) of the Income Tax Act which is effective from 01.04.2021, the reopening can only be done in the cases where the escaped income is likely to be more than 50 lakhs. Undisputedly in the facts of present case the amount of escaped income as determined by the Ld.AO is Rs. 7,54,000/- which is below the stipulated mandatory limit. Thus, accordingly the entire reassessment is bad in law.
In this regard reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:
"50. Another important change under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime is the increase in the monetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakhs. The old regime prescribed a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment was more than Rupees one lakh. In comparison, the new regime increases the time limit to ten years if the escaped assessment amounts to more than Rupees fifty lakhs. This change could be summarized thus:
Regime Time limit Income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment Old regime Four years but not Rupees one lakh or more than six years more. New regime Three years but not Rupees fifty lakhs or more than ten years more.
3 The Imperial Condominium, Mumbai
Given Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, reassessment notices could be issued after three years only if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs. The proviso to Section 149(1)(b) limits the retrospectivity of that provision with respect to the time limits specified under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.
In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court held that the benefit of the new regime must be provided for the reassessment conducted for the past periods. The increase of the monetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakh is beneficial for the assesses. Mr. Venkataraman has also conceded on behalf of the Revenue that all notices issued under the new regime by invoking the six year time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.
The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs."
On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
We have heard the counsels of both the parties and also perused the orders passed by the revenue authorities and judgment cited by Ld.AR. Since, in the present case the 4 The Imperial Condominium, Mumbai reopening was initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 and as per Sec. 149 Sub Clause (1) Sub Clause (b) of the Income Tax Act, the reopening can only be initiated where the escaped income is more than 50 lakhs and since undisputedly in the present case the escaped income as determined by the Ld.AO is Rs. 7,54,000/-. Therefore, in our view the entire exercise of reassessment is bad in law and in valid and is accordingly held as such. In the net result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the reassessment proceedings stands quashed with no orders as to cost.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 149
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mahesh Pulaveni, Adilabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 991/HYD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Suguru Anjanaiah, Guntakal vs ITO, Ward-1, GuntakalITA 2336/HYD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026