ACIT Vs Vinay Kumar Gupta (ITAT Mumbai)
The core issue was whether a reassessment notice issued on 31.07.2022 was within the limitation period considering extensions under TOLA and the Supreme Court rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
The Revenue argued that extended timelines and legal fiction under Ashish Agarwal preserved the validity of notices and allowed sufficient time to complete reassessment. However, the Tribunal applied the computation method laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, which requires calculating the “surviving time” after factoring exclusions (including time for supply of material and assessee’s reply).
On facts, only 10 days of surviving time remained (from 21.06.2021 to 30.06.2021). After the assessee’s reply on 07.06.2022, the AO was required to issue notice by 17.06.2022, but instead issued it on 31.07.2022, beyond limitation.
Accordingly, the ITAT held the notice time-barred, void ab initio, and upheld the CIT(A)’s order quashing the entire reassessment. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, and the assessee’s cross-objection became infructuous
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The present appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee have been filed against the impugned order dated 13/11/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013-14.
