Sunblaze Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Reassessment Notice u/s 148 for AY 2016-17 Quashed as Time-Barred After Rajeev Bansal—Entire Proceedings Invalid
The Kolkata ITAT (D Bench) allowed the appeal of Sunblaze Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17, condoned a delay of 498 days, admitted an additional legal ground, and quashed the notice issued under section 148 along with the consequential reassessment, holding the proceedings to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that:
- The assessee established “sufficient cause” for the 498-day delay due to loss of ITBA access after resignation of the accountant; applying SC in Collector v. Katiji, the delay was condoned.
- The legal ground on limitation was rightly admitted as a pure question of law, following SC in NTPC and Jute Corporation.
- The original notice u/s 148 dated 29.06.2021 (old regime) had only two days of “surviving period” left as on 30.06.2021 under TOLA.
- Post Ashish Agarwal, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) and received the assessee’s reply by 14.06.2022; by virtue of proviso to section 149(1), the AO had 7 days from the end of reply time—outer limit: 29.06.2022.
- The AO, however, passed the order u/s 148A(d) and issued fresh notice u/s 148 on 29.07.2022, beyond the permissible period, rendering the notice void ab initio.
- The issue is squarely covered by SC in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and supported by High Court decisions (Delhi, Gujarat).
Outcome:
Paid content
Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.
