Vishal Shankar Chavan Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT: Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16 Issued After 31 March 2022 Is Time-Barred
The Pune ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that a notice under section 148 issued on 5 April 2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149(1). The Tribunal observed that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and the subsequent decisions in Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, as well as the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Selvakumar Nadar, all reassessment notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are liable to be dropped.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention that the fifth proviso to section 149(1) extended the limitation period by excluding the time granted to the assessee for responding to the notice under section 148A(b). It held that the exclusion provision comes into play only if the notice first survives the limitation test under the first proviso, which was not the case here.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order, held that the notice under section 148 and the consequential reassessment order were void and bad in law, and allowed the assessee’s appeal. Having quashed the reassessment on the legal issue of limitation, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the remaining grounds on merits as they had become academic.
Cases Discussed
- ITO and Another Vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti (SC), judgment dated 04.05.2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8682/2024)
- Selvakumar Nadar Vs. ITO (Bombay HC), (2026) 182 taxmann.com 683 (Bom HC)
- Babu Hasan Shaikh Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No.926/Mum/2025, order dated 28.04.2025
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (SC), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The appeal is filed by the assessee against the separate order of NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the allowing grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-HFAC red in confirming completed under section 147 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of notice issued under section 148 by JAO instead of PAO as required by section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant submit that nation issued under section 148 of IT Act, 1961 Jurvediction and assessment completed quashed without said notice is bad in law and liable to appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 of IT Act, 1961 was insond the on 05/04/2022 Le beyond the period of six years. The appellant submit that notice issued under section 148 is time barred. Acmedingly, anansament completed basis of said notice is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3. The appellant prays for just fair and appropriate relie On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CITIA) erred in confirming reopening of assessment under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 when there is no escapement of income in the form of asset of Rs 50 lakh or more. The appellant prays for funt fair and appropriate relief.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in setting aside assessment order for fresh verification. The appellant prays for just fair and appropriate relief
5. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in mot quashing the assessment order passed under section 147 cows 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, probabilities. The appellant prays for just fair and appropriate relief.
6. the appellant craves leave to add, alter and or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has not pressed the ground of appeal No. 1 and is treated as withdrawn and is dismissed.
