Case Law Details
Gurusamy Suseela Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment for AY 2010-11 on the ground that the notice issued u/s 148 was beyond the statutory time limit. Under section 149, the last date for issuing notice was 31.03.2017 (six years from the end of the relevant assessment year).
Although the notice bore the date 31.03.2017, the assessee produced evidence showing that it was actually dispatched later, including the speed-post envelope showing dispatch on 03.04.2017. The assessee therefore argued that the notice was ante-dated and issued after the limitation period.
The Tribunal examined the dispatch/issue register of the AO’s office and found several irregularities:
- Manual entries were maintained up to 30.03.2017, but for 31.03.2017 typed sheets were pasted in the register instead of normal entries.
- The serial numbers and page numbering were inconsistent, creating serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the entries.
- There was no evidence that the notice had actually been dispatched or handed over for service on 31.03.2017.
The Tribunal held that issuance of notice u/s 148 within limitation is a jurisdictional requirement, and the burden lies on the Revenue to prove that the notice was validly issued within time. Since the Department failed to demonstrate that the notice had actually been issued on 31.03.2017, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the notice was ante-dated and issued beyond limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2 Chandigarh dated 22.08.2025 for assessment year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2010-11.
2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to the legal issue raised by the assessee wherein he has assailed the action of the AO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter ‘the Act’) to be invalid since it has been issued after the time barring date i.e., after 01.04.2017 (six years from the end of the relevant assessment year in this case is 31.03.2017).
3. Since assessee has raised a legal issue (supra), we will deal with it first. The relevant assessment year in this case is A.Y 2010-11 and according to Ld AR, the maximum time limit for issuance of notice u/s.148 is six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, according to him, the last date for issuance of notice is 31.03.2017. According to him, even though a perusal of the impugned notice u/s 148, reveals that it is dated Mar 31, 2017, however it has been issued only after the time barring date; and by merely writing on the notice the date as 31.03.2017, wouldn’t suffice, when it was actually issued on 01.04.2017, which assessee received on 03.04.2017; and in order to prove the same, he has placed copy of the cover of notice, which has endorsement/stamp-date of the speed-post authorities as 03.04.2017. The assessee has challenged the legality and validity of the reopening notice dated 31.03.2017 (issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act) as time barred, basis that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149 of the Act. Hence prayed for quashing the impugned notice being time-barred. Per Contra, the Ld DR submitted that notice was actually signed & issued on 31.03.2017. Hence, the said date would be the date of issue and as such, the impugned notice has been issued within the time limit prescribed u/s.149 of the Act. Hence the Ld DR doesn’t want us to interfere with the action of AO on this legal issue as to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
4. Heard both the parties. We take up the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act bearing date 31.03.2017 to have been issued beyond the period of limitation. The assessment year before us is AY 2010-11 and the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act ended on 31.03.2017. Perusal of the copy of notice u/s 148 of the Act placed in the paper-book shows that, it bore the date 31.03.2017. The assessee however has vehemently contended that, the impugned notice was ante-dated and that there was no valid issuance of notice on 31.03.2017. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to keep in mind that, a notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be equated with a show cause notice; as such notice can be issued only if the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act is satisfied. When the validity of a notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is in challenge, then, it is incumbent for the Revenue to satisfy this Tribunal that the notice was validly issued. It is well settled in law that, non-issuance of a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional defect which renders the entire reassessment proceedings to be bad in law and ab initio void. We are aware of the distinction between ‘issue of notice’ and ‘service of notice’, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RK Upadhyaya v. SP Patel (166 ITR 163), but at the same time, it is indeed imperative for the AO to demonstrate that there was indeed issuance of notice on the given date viz., 31.03.2017, in the present case. The issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is not a mere procedural requirement but a condition precedent to the validity of reassessment. If it is shown that, no notice was issued within the period of limitation, then, the proceedings conducted by the AO would be illegal and void.
5. Reverting back to the facts of the case, the assessee has contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act bearing date 31.03.2017 was ante-dated and to verify the assertion of the Ld. AR, the relevant assessment records and the ‘Issue-Register/Dispatch-register’ of the AO was called for examination. It is seen that, there is a manual notice dated 31.03.2017 in the assessment records, but there is no evidence to show that the said notice was handed over for dispatch/issuance on the said date. We observe that there is nothing contained in the assessment records which would show that the AO had attempted to get the issued notice served through registered post or through inspector or by affixture which would have reasonably demonstrated that the notice u/s 148 had been actually issued on 31.03.2017. More particularly, the Ld. AR took us through the contents of the ‘Issue-Register’ maintained by the office of the AO and pointed out that ordinarily, the concerned clerk would make manual date-wise and serial number wise entries in the register noting down the notices/orders/communications issued by the office of the AO. The pages of the register are also serially numbered. It is however noted from the entries made on 31.03.2017 that there is a departure from the normal practice of recording written entries in the register, rather typed white-sheets have been glued & pasted on the pages of the Register. In other words, the information regarding issue of notice in question is found in the white-sheet paper pasted on the Register under date 31.03.2017. It is also observed that, again from next date onwards, the office of the AO was maintaining the register manually, date wise and serial number wise. Having perused the contents of the register, we indeed find it odd as to why the concerned official suddenly stopped making manual date-wise entries and rather chose to paste printed as well hand-written white-sheets containing details of the notices/orders issued inter alia on 31.03.2017. It is also glaring to us that even the page numbers on these white sheets do not correlate with the pages containing manual entries. For instance, the last page number manually entered was 115 i.e. till 30.03.2017, last serial number was 4028, whereas the white sheets contained few pages from page No.116 and onwards and there is break in serial numbers and discrepancy therein. We found several such glaring defects which raised serious doubts on the veracity of the register and indeed indicated that the notice bearing date 31.03.2017 was ante-dated and the registers were accordingly modified to suggest issuance on the same date, which according to us doesn’t inspire confidence and so the entries made in the Register produced before us can’t be believed, we discard the dispatch-register/Issue Register.
6. In view of our above observations, there is merit in the Ld. AR’s contention that the notice u/s 148 of the Act bearing date 31.03.2017 appears to be ante-dated and that the Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the notice was issued and left the control of the AO on the said date, which was the last date of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for the relevant AY 2010-11. Since the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not issued within the period of limitation, the consequent proceedings conducted u/s 147 of the Act and the impugned order is held to be null in the eyes of law and is therefore quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on the legal issue, we are not inclined to decide the merits of the case because it is academic. The assessee thus succeeds on this legal issue.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of March, 2026, in Chennai.
Author Bio
