Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary issue revolves around the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice was time-barred.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were deemed void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was time-barred and thus invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings void.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 250, 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay condoned.
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.01.2025 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 2014-15.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not adjudicating the legal ground challenging the issue of Notice u/s 148. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.54,16,688/- u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act. Maheboob Abbas Shaikh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2–
3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.30,33,233/- on a/c of Capital Gain.”
The details relating to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are summarized as under:-
AY : 2014-15 Sr. Particulars Date 1. Date of issue of notice u/s 148 22.06.2021 (Old Provisions) 2. Date of providing the underlying information 23.05.2022 u/s 148A(b) 3. Time available for response being two weeks 07.06.2022 from the date of providing the information i.e. (as per decision in from 23.05.2022 Rajeev Bansal [SC]) 4. Survival period left 08 days (22.06.2021 to 30.06.2021) 5. Limitation date for issue of notice u/s 148 15.06.2022 (07.06.2022 + 8 days, as per decision in Rajeev Bansal [SC]) 6. Actual date of issue of notice u/s 148 (new 23.07.2022 provisions) by the Assessing Officer
From the above facts, it is evident that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.07.2022, which is beyond the limitation period prescribed under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the notice issued under section 148 is time-barred and invalid.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) dated 03.10.2024, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 is time-barred and, Maheboob Abbas Shaikh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– therefore, invalid in the eyes of law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of such invalid notice are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated ……./02/2026 btk