DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIKRAM BAKSHI, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the entire assessment was quashed.
What were the facts?
The case involves an appeal and cross-objection concerning an assessment order for AY 2015-16. The primary issue revolves around the validity and timeliness of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment was within the prescribed time limit, and whether the entire assessment is vitiated due to a time-barred notice.
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 citing469 ITR 46 · 2024 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
The instant appeal and Cross Objection filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively are directed against the order passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 27.11.2024 arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.05.2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2015-16.
Cross Objection No. 167/Del/2025
Since the assessee has raised the issue on maintainability of the proceeding we would like to proceed with the same.
In this case the notice under Section 148 of the Act should have been issued within 6 years from the end of Assessment Year 2023-24 i.e. on or before 31.03.2023. In the case in hand, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022 and thus, the same is barred by limitation as the case of the assessee.
In fact, on 30.06.2021 the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Relevant to mention that on 01.06.2022 the notice under Section 148A(b) had been issued and on 24.06.2022 the reply to the said notice under Section 148A(b) was furnished by the assessee. On 25.07.2022 the order under Section 148A(d) was passed and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Bansal, reported in 469 ITR 46 whereas in paragraph 112, the specific guideline has been framed that the time limit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act under the new regime ended on 01.07.2022 i.e. 7 days after 24.06.2022 the date when the reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) was furnished by the assessee. In that view of the matter, the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on 25.07.2022 is barred by limitation as the case made out by the assessee. Such fact has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. On the contrary, the Ld. DR has filed a short note of submission of 1 page on the merit of the matter and not been able to narrate anything on the maintainability of the proceedings as raised by the assessee.
Thus, having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter when the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022 i.e. beyond the time limit prescribed on 30.10.2024, the same is found to be barred by limitation. Particularly taking into consideration the ratio laid down and the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra) the order impugned under Section 148 of the Act is found to be barred by limitation and therefore, quashed. Consequently, the entire assessment is vitiated and therefore, quashed.
The Cross Objection filed by the assessee since allowed and relates to the jurisdictional issue of the assessment which is upheld in favour of the assessee, the Revenue’s appeal has become academic and thus, dismissed as infructuous.
The appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
