Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against an order of the NFAC for AY 2013-14. The assessee filed a Cross Objection arguing that the notice for reassessment (u/s 148) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, making the entire reassessment proceedings void.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148, issued on 30.07.2022, was beyond the permissible time limit for AY 2013-14, making the reassessment proceedings void-ab-initio. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the notice u/s 148 for reassessment was issued within the statutory time limit and thus valid, or if it was barred by limitation.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 143(3), 149(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Year: 2013-14] Assistant Commissioner of Arun Kumar, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), II F-3, Nehru Nagar, 201-202, 2nd Floor, CGO-1, Vs Uttar Pradesh-201001 Near Purani Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-201002 PAN-AEAPK1314B Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.117/Del/2025 (Arising out of [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Arun Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income II F-3, Nehru Nagar, Tax, Circle-2(1), 201-202, 2nd Floor, CGO-1, Near Uttar Pradesh-201001 Vs Purani Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-201002 PAN-AEAPK1314B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against order dated 31.12.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in Appeal CO No.117/Del/2025 No.NFAC/2012-13/10276555, arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection.
The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are interconnected and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.
Cross Objection No.117/Del/2025
The assessee vide CO No.117/Del/2025 is contesting revenue’s appeal filed vide . As the Cross Objection raised by the assessee strike at the very root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. We have taken the same first for adjudication. It is settled principal of law that when the foundation goes the superstructure naturally collapses. In the instant case, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 is the foundation for the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.w. 147 of the Act dated 29.05.2023.
The assessee through its Cross Objection has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/144 inter-alia on the following grounds.
CO No.117/Del/2025 * That the belief could not have been formed for escapement of income. * That four weeks have not been granted to the assessee after the disposal of objections raised by assessee as per law. * That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is bad in law as the mandatory and statutory conditions of section 147 to 151 of the Act have not been complied with.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/144 which is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.”
In furtherance to the above grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in pursuance to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, the ld. Assessing Officer had issued communication dated 30.05.2022 requiring submissions of reply by the assessee on or before 13.06.2022. It was submitted that the assessee furnished its reply on 06.06.2022. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that effective from 13.06.2022 within the meaning of fourth proviso to section 149(1), the ld. Assessing Officer had seven days of time till 20.06.2022 to issue notice. This timeline was available in compliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajiv Bansal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 (placed at page no.133-134 of the paper book). Thus, it was argued that impugned notice was barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order dated 29.05.2023 (supra), which is resting on the impugned notice, therefore cannot survive.
CO No.117/Del/2025 6. We have heard submission in the light of material available on record. Availability of valid legal jurisdiction is sine qua non for every quasi judicial authority. It is trite law that any order passed without having valid jurisdiction is void-ab-initio. We have noted that in the instant case, the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 29.05.2023 is resting upon the notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022. This fact is clearly mentioned by the ld. AO in para 3.1 of his impugned order. As the notice u/s 148 has been issued beyond the statutory time limit, the same has become fatal to the order dated 29.05.2023 (supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal has explained the concept of surviving period as the period between the date of issuance of notice u/s 148 under pre-amended law and the period of limitation i.e., 30.06.2021 after exclusion of period as per 3rd proviso to section 149(1) i.e., date from the issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) to the time allowed to the assessee in the said notice. We have noted that in the present case, notice u/s 148 under pre-amended law was issued on 25.06.2021 (placed at PB 46), which was treated as notice u/s 148A(b), the time available with the A.O. to issue notice u/s 148, thereafter, was 5 days i.e. 25.06.2021 to 30.06.2021.However, since the said period is less than 7 days’, a maximum time of 7 days’ is to be allowed. Therefore, after exclusion of the period stated above (from 25.06.2021 to 30.06.2022), Ld. AO could have issued notice u/s 148 for AY 2013-14 within 7 days from 30.06.2022 whereas notice u/s 148 in the instant case has been issued on 30.07.2022 (placed at PB 133- CO No.117/Del/2025 134). Consequently, the notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 gets barred by limitation and hence, the proceedings-initiated u/s 148 in the present case are void-ab-initio and bad-in-law. We have also noted that the impugned decision of Hon’ble Apex Court has been followed by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of in case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, WPC No. 16232/2024 dated 30.01.2025 (Del.). Wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court have applied surviving period as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and have held that notice u/s 148 issued beyond the surviving period is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we quash the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 and set-aside the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 29.05.2023. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed.
In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed.
Apropos to the discussion above as we have quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 and the corresponding assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 25.09.2023, the appeal of the Revenue has become infructuous and hence dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
CO No.117/Del/2025 10. Finally, the Cross Objection No.117/Del/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed and Appeal in filed by the Revenue is dismissed.