INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL, SURAT

ITA 938/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 February 2026AY 2015-16Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued after April 1, 2021, was invalid as it was time-barred. This was in accordance with the proviso to Section 149(1) and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings, stating the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by a time-barred notice under Section 148 after the substitution of Sections 147-151 by the Finance Act, 2021.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 2(22)(e)

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, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
For Respondent: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate
Hearing: 23.01.2026Pronounced: 17.02.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act by treating such unsecured loan of Rs.1,82,50,000/- as the companies by deeme

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →