Penugonda Yagnasree Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
In , the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Visakhapatnam Bench concerned the validity of a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings on several grounds, including limitation, validity of notice under Sections 148 and 151A, and addition under Section 69A for unexplained bank deposits.
The Tribunal first considered the legal issue relating to limitation, as it went to the root of the matter. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148A(b) on 23.03.2022, followed by an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 on 04.04.2022. According to the assessee, the notice dated 04.04.2022 was issued beyond six years from the end of Assessment Year 2015-16 and was therefore barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Tribunal, including the Hyderabad Bench ruling in Sudheer Parimala vs. ITO.
The Revenue argued that under the amended reassessment provisions effective from 01.04.2021, the limitation period extended up to ten years where escaped income exceeded Rs.50 lakhs. It contended that the first proviso to Section 149(1) applied only where the old six-year limitation had already expired before 01.04.2021. Since the limitation allegedly survived as on that date, the Revenue maintained that the extended ten-year period under the amended law was available. Reliance was placed on judgments including Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Salil Gulati vs. ACIT, and Ramadoss Srikanthi vs. ACIT.
