Pradeep Shyamlal Sayani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee’s appeal and quashed reassessment proceedings after holding that a notice under Section 148 cannot be treated as issued within limitation merely because it bore an earlier date when it was actually signed and served later.
The assessee had filed a return declaring total income of ₹5,82,400 for AY 2017-18. The case was reopened based on information that deposits of ₹1.46 crore had been made in eight bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank and Syndicate Bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 and later completed reassessment under Sections 147 read with 144B, making an addition of ₹52.66 lakh towards unexplained bank deposits.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged both the jurisdiction of the AO and the merits of the addition. The assessee specifically contended that the notice under Section 148, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually signed and served only on 07.04.2021 and was therefore barred by limitation. The CIT(A) rejected the contention and upheld the reassessment.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied on e-proceeding records showing service of notice on 07.04.2021. Reliance was also placed on judgments of the Telangana High Court in Kalyan Chillara and Anantha Reddy Pannala, as well as the Gujarat High Court decision in Saumil Avinash Baheti, where notices served after expiry of limitation were held invalid.
