Apcotex Industries Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Reassessment Time-Barred Post Rajeev Bansal: ITAT Quashes Second Reopening for AY 2013-14
The Mumbai Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Apcotex Industries Ltd. for AY 2013-14, quashing the reassessment proceedings on the jurisdictional ground of limitation by applying the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
The case involved a second reopening where the AO issued notice under section 148 (new regime) after following the Ashish Agarwal directions. The Tribunal meticulously computed the “surviving period of limitation” available to the Revenue after the deemed notice dated 28.06.2021 and the TOLA outer date of 30.06.2021, which left only two days. After excluding the time granted to the assessee to respond to the section 148A(b) notice and applying the statutory minimum extension under the proviso to section 149, the outer permissible date for passing the order under section 148A(d) and issuing notice under section 148 was 20.06.2022.
However, the AO passed the order under section 148A(d) on 28.07.2022 and issued the section 148 notice on 29.07.2022, well beyond the surviving time-limit. Relying on Rajeev Bansal (paras 107–113) and the Gujarat High Court decision in Krishna Naitik Patel, the ITAT held that Ashish Agarwal does not revive or enlarge limitation and that any notice issued beyond the surviving period is time-barred and without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment and assessment order passed under sections 147/144B. Since the reassessment failed on limitation, all grounds on merits—including disallowance of depreciation and addition of notional rental income—were left academic. The appeal was allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
