SIGNATURE BUILDERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6432/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that under the pre-amendment Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was the terminal point for initiating reassessment. For AY 2016-17, this period ended on 31 March 2023.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose against an order passed in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the reopening of assessment initiated by a Section 148 notice dated 29.04.2023 was time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by a Section 148 notice were sustainable in law given the time limits prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 149(1)(b),Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. &, Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025

Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi’s DIN & order No .

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080034389(1) dated 26.08 .2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused

2.

The assessee at the outset raised his first and foremost legal ground/argument that the impugned reopening sent into motion by the learned assessing authority vide section 148 notice dated 24.04.2023 itself is not sustainable in law since initiated beyond the statutory time period i.e. between four to six years “from the end of the relevant assessment year” u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. It is reiterated that the impugned assessment year is AY 2016-17.

3.

That being the case, learned counsel quotes hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Manju Somani vs Income Tax Officer, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 675 (Del.) very issue against the Department as under:-

11.

It would in this context be apposite to take note of the following significant provisions which stand introduced as per the Proviso to Section 149(1) and which reads thus:- “Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under Section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); [(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more:] Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if [a notice under section 148 or section 153-A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153-C, as the case may be], as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: 2 | P a g e

Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: [Provided also that for cases referred to in clauses (i), (iii) and (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 148, where,— (a) a search is initiated under section 132; or (b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed; or (c) requisition is made under section 132A, after the 15th day of March of any financial year and the period for issue of notice under section 148 expires on the 31st day of March of such financial year, a period of fifteen days shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation as per this section and the notice issued under section 148 in such case shall be deemed to have been issued on the 31st day of March of such financial year: Provided also that where the information as referred to in Explanation 1 to section 148 emanates from a statement recorded or documents impounded under section 131 or section 133A, as the case may be, on or before the 31st day of March of a financial year, in consequence of,— (a) a search under section 132 which is initiated; or (b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed; or (c) a requisition made under section 132A, after the 15th day of March of such financial year, a period of fifteen days shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation as per this section and the notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A in such case shall be deemed to have been issued on the 31st day of March of such financial year:] Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A [does not exceed seven days], such remaining period shall be 3 | P a g e extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) of this subsection, “asset” shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), has escaped the assessment and the investment in such asset or expenditure in relation to such event or occasion has been made or incurred, in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), a notice under section 148 shall be issued for every such assessment year for assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.]”

12.

As is manifest from the above, the Proviso to Section 149 clearly bids us to go back in point of time and examine whether a proposed reassessment pertaining to a period prior to 01 April 2021 would sustain based on the time frames as they existed prior to the promulgation of Finance Act, 2021. The Proviso embodies a negative command restraining the respondents from issuing a notice under Section 148 in respect of an AY prior to 01 April 2021, if the period within which such a notice could have been issued in accordance with the provisions as they existed prior thereto had elapsed. This is manifest from the provision using the expression “no notice under Section 148 shall be issued” if the time limit specified in the relevant provisions “…..as they stood immediately prior to the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021” had expired. A reassessment which is sought to be commenced post 01 April 2021 would thus have to abide by the time limits prescribed by Sections 149 (1)(b), 153A or 153B as may be applicable.

13.

Undisputedly, Section 149(1)(b) as it stood prior to the introduction of the amendments by way of Finance Act, 2021 prescribed that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued if four years “but not more than six years” have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus the period of six years stood erected as the terminal point which when crossed would have rendered the initiation of reassessment impermissible in law.

14.

Viewed in light of the above, the impugned notice when tested on the anvil of the pre-amendment Section 149(1)(b) in order to be sustained would have to meet the prescription of six years. Undisputedly that period in respect of AY 2016-17 came to an end on 31 March 2023. We thus find ourselves unable to sustain the impugned action of reassessment and which was commenced pursuant to the notice dated 29 April 2024.

15.

It would be important to note that the respondents also do not attempt to sustain the initiation of action on any other statutory provision and which could be read as extending the time limit that applied. We also find ourselves unable to read Twylight Infrastructure as empowering them to reopen assessments contrary to the negative covenant which forms part of Section 149 of the Act.

16.

We accordingly allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned order under Section 148A (d) dated 29 April 2024 as well as the consequential notice under Section 148 of even date. 4. I accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement submissions supporting the impugned reopening in very terms. The same stands quashed therefore.

5.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →