Mahender Merugu Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
In this case, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment initiated under Section 148, arguing that the notice, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021 and therefore the amended provisions of Section 148A (introduced by Finance Act, 2021) should have been followed.
The ITAT examined the dispatch records and found that although the notice was dated 31.03.2021, it was handed over to the postal authorities only on 01.04.2021 at 14:48 hours, and even emailed later. Hence, the notice was effectively issued on or after 01.04.2021, bringing it within the scope of the amended reassessment regime.
Since the Assessing Officer had not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 148A and had also obtained approval from an incorrect authority (Addl. CIT/JCIT instead of the prescribed authority under Section 151), the Tribunal held the notice to be invalid. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Ashish Agarwal, it concluded that non-compliance with the new procedure vitiates the entire proceedings.
Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequential reassessment order, rendering other grounds infructuous. The appeal was allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.03.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.
