Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal concerns additions made to his income for AY 2019-20 based on a notice issued under Section 148. The original notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 24.03.2023, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 10.04.2023.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 10.04.2023 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were considered void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and invalid, rendering the subsequent reassessment proceedings void. Whether additions made based on 'dumb documents' from a third party without corroboration are permissible.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 69A, 132(4A), 292C, 250
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
(Assessment Year: 2019-20) Arvindkumar Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer, Vs. Goyal, Ward 2(3)(1), 201, Shrungar Residency, Surat Nr. Nandani-2, Vesu, Surat – 395 007 [PAN : AAZPA 7736 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Kiran K. Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act are bad in law.
2. The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 34,87,850/- assuming undisclosed investment invoking section 69A of the Act on the base of dumb documents found and seized in the case of third party. The learned CIT (A) has not corroborated the alleged Investment for particular shop or flat or plot etc.
3. The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in presuming undisclosed investment though such presumption is available u/s. 132 (4A)/292C of the Act in the case of searched person only. Arvindkumar Mahendrakumar Goyal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 2–
4. The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in not confronting the statement related to that seized material in the case of third party and not allowing cross examination thereof.”
The details relating to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are summarized as under:- AY : 2019-20 Sr. Particulars Date 1. Notice u/s 148A(b) was issued 24.03.2023 2. Time allowed to reply to notice u/s 148A(b) 7 days 3. Three years from the end of relevant AY expired on 31.03.2023 4. Last date by which notice u/s 148 could be issued. 07.04.2023 5. Notice u/s 148 issued 10.04.2023
From the above facts, it is evident that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 10.04.2023, 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 10.04.2023 is time-barred and, 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 30.01.2026 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 30/01/2026 btk Arvindkumar Mahendrakumar Goyal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 3–