← All Phrases

“time barred assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 153Section 153144 judgments

The decision most relied on for time barred assessment is CIT v. Foramer France (264 ITR 566), cited in 253 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on time barred assessment

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Sahara India v. CIT
169 Taxmann 328 · 2008 · Supreme Court
108
citing judgments

The exercise of power under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act requires a pre-decisional hearing. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot examine the validity of such an order to contend that the assessment is time-barred.

Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes
174 Taxmann.com 144 · 2025 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

Reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16 are time-barred. The relaxation provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, does not extend the period of limitation for such notices.

Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala
69 STC 62 · 1988 · High Court
54
citing judgments

An assessment order is time-barred if the department fails to prove that the order was dispatched within the prescribed period of limitation. The burden lies on the department to make the dispatch date available from records to establish timely issuance.

Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
250 CTR 119 · 2012 · High Court
51
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment.

CIT v. Bajrang Textiles
294 ITR 561 · 2007 · High Court
50
citing judgments

A direction for special audit under Section 142(2A), issued near the expiry of the limitation period primarily to gain an extension of time or with instructions beyond the section's scope, is illegal, rendering the subsequent assessment time-barred.

VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Del)
113 ITD 655 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

Authorities are not at fault for following a less drastic procedure when it comes to search and seizure assessments and adhering to time limits.

CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd.
382 ITR 110 · 2016 · High Court
40
citing judgments

An assessment order that is not served on the assessee before the assessment's time-barring date is considered non-est, meaning it is void and without legal effect.

Judgments citing time barred assessment

Urjaa Metalics Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Accil Auto Steels Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

ITA 3919/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 153Section 153(3)Section 153A

Page 1 ITA Nos.3919 & 3920/Del/2023 & ITA Nos.346 & 347/Del/2024 (AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH

Teras Steels Private Limited (Earlier Known As M/S. Accil Steels Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, all captioned appeals/Cross-Objections etc

ITA 3809/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

result, all captioned appeals/Cross-Objections etc. of the assessee are allowed whereas all the captioned appeals/Cross-objections etc. of the Revenue arising from time barred assessment orders are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2025. (SUDHIR KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.457/Del/2024 & Others *Amit Kumar, Sr.PS

Nagajyothi Myneni, Hyderabad vs. ADIT., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 109/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) 8 ITA.No.109/Hyd./2023 r.w.s.144C of the Act shall not sustain and the same shall be termed as time barred assessment and liable to be annulled. 3.1. Coming to not following the directions of the DRP while passing final assessment order by the Assessing Officer

Hyundai Rotem Company-Indian Project Offices, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation, Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhyundai Rotem Acit Company Indian Project International Taxation, Offices Vs. Circle2(1)(1), Room No. Unit No. 705, 706, 707 310, E-2 Block & 708 (07Th Floor), Dlf Pratyakash Kar Tower-A, Jasola District Bhawan, Civic Centre, Centre Near Apollo Jl Nehru Marg, New Hospital, Mathura Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabck6367L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

provision. Applying principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, only relevant fact necessary for deciding additional ground in present appeal relating to time barred assessment, is time of uploading by DRP of DRP order onto ITBA portal. Intimation letter to DRP order unambiguously shows 26.05.2022 as date of uploading

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Teck Consultancy and Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 675/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Abhisar Buildwell Ltd (supra).So, in any case, the loan-creditors declared in ROI cannot be treated as incriminating material. In case of time barred assessment, the search was conducted on 25/03/2021. So, considering that, the assessment year 2012-13 is barred by limitation. Further, there is absence of incrimination

Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Coimbatore vs. Acot, Ncc-5, Coimbatore

ITA 690/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

For Appellant: Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 250

raised following grounds of appeal:- “...1. The order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is contrary to provisions of law and facts. Time barred assessment 2. The Assessment Year in question is 2016-2017. By virtue of Section 153(1) as applicable to the said Assessment year, the assessment ... should have been completed on or before 31.01.2019. The assessment was not completed by 31.01.2019. Therefore the Assessment order passed on 14.08.2019 is time barred assessment. 3. Assuming without admitting that the Valuation Officer was granted extension of time to complete the Valuation, it could not have been longer than

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

therefore prayed That Penalty Levy by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted -That grounds of appeal related to time barred assessment shall be allowed -That other grounds of appeal which are not adjudicated by the by Ld. CIT(A) shall be adjudicated and shall

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

therefore prayed That Penalty Levy by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted -That grounds of appeal related to time barred assessment shall be allowed -That other grounds of appeal which are not adjudicated by the by Ld. CIT(A) shall be adjudicated and shall

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

therefore prayed That Penalty Levy by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted -That grounds of appeal related to time barred assessment shall be allowed -That other grounds of appeal which are not adjudicated by the by Ld. CIT(A) shall be adjudicated and shall

Honda R & D (India) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2018-19 Honda R & D (India) Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1) P. Ltd. New Delhi. Technical Centre, Plot No. 2, Sector-3, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Haryana 122050 Pan Aabch3071N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 13Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Applying principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, only relevant fact necessary for deciding Ground No. 4 in present appeal relating to time barred assessment, is time of uploading by DRP of DRP order onto ITBA portal. Intimation letter to DRP order unambiguously shows 27th April 2022 as date

Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Umesh Rohra, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue id dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1106/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Umesh Rohra No.2, M/S. Umesh Electro Marketix Ito Ward-5(2)(1) G.R. Lane Sp Road Cross Vs. Bangalore Bengaluru 560 002 Karnataka Pan No.Acopr3873J Appellant Respondent Co No.4/Bang/2024 (Arising Out Ita No.1106/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Umesh Rohra Vs. Ito Ward-5(2)(1) Bengaluru 560 002 Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent By : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R.

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 199

department filed a condonation petition stating that the concerned AO was deputed for investigation duty and later he was busy in completing the time barred assessments and penalty orders, thus there was a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have gone through

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai vs. Helios Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1740/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai vs. Helios Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1739/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

ACIT (CC)-8(2), Mumbai vs. Helios Exports Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1735/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

ACIT (CC)-8(2), Mumbai vs. Helios Exports Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1734/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Citron Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1572/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Citron Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1571/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2)., Mumbai vs. M/S Citron Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1569/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee

Hellios Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai

ITA 1334/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Assessee objected to the same. Such objections were rejected. The assessee also raised several other technical issues before the learned assessing officer regarding time barred assessment etc. Same are also not accepted. Assessee also objected that notice under section 143 (2) of the act was not issued to the assessee