Case Law Details
Ikramudin Mohammed Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Summary: The ITAT Hyderabad quashed reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and based on incorrect facts. The Assessing Officer issued the notice on 07.04.2022 for AY 2015–16, which was beyond the permissible time limits under Section 149. The Tribunal observed that the actual alleged escaped income was below ₹50 lakh, making the applicable limitation period three years, which had already expired. It further noted that the AO had artificially inflated the escapement amount by duplicating entries, an approach held to be legally untenable. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that limitation must be determined based on correct and actual facts, not on erroneous assumptions. Since the notice itself was invalid, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the notice and reassessment order, allowing the appeal without examining other grounds on merits.
Core Issue:-The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, particularly when the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and based on incorrect computation of alleged escaped income exceeding ₹50 lakh.
Facts of the Case:-The assessee’s case for AY 2015–16 was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated 07.04.2022 on the basis of information flagged under the risk management system relating to bank deposits and financial transactions. The Assessing Officer alleged escapement of income based on deposits aggregating to more than ₹50 lakh. However, on factual verification, the total deposits considered for addition amounted only to ₹49,17,939. The AO had erroneously duplicated one transaction of ₹17 lakh under two different reporting categories, thereby artificially inflating the figure beyond ₹50 lakh.
Assessing Officer’s Findings:-The AO proceeded on the premise that income exceeding ₹50 lakh had escaped assessment, thereby invoking the extended limitation period under Section 149. Based on this, reassessment proceedings were initiated and additions were ultimately made aggregating to ₹49,17,939 under Sections 69 and 69A.
CIT(A)’s Findings:-The CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment as well as the additions made by the AO, rejecting the assessee’s contention that the notice was time-barred and that the computation of escaped income was erroneous.
ITAT Findings:-The ITAT Hyderabad held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid and barred by limitation, and accordingly quashed the reassessment. The Tribunal observed that:
The notice dated 07.04.2022 was issued beyond six years from the end of AY 2015–16 and thus hit by the first proviso to Section 149.
Even under the amended provisions, since the actual escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh, the applicable limitation period was only three years, which had also expired.
The AO had incorrectly double-counted a ₹17 lakh transaction, inflating the escaped income beyond ₹50 lakh. Such artificial inflation cannot extend limitation.
The Tribunal emphasized that limitation must be determined based on correct and real facts, not on erroneous or non-existing figures.
Once the notice itself is invalid, the entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated.
Accordingly, the reassessment order was quashed and other grounds were treated as infructuous.
Cases Relied Upon:-The Tribunal relied on the following key precedents:
Kondakrindi Madhu Sudhan Reddy vs. ITO (Telangana High Court, 2026) — notice beyond six years held time-barred.
ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (SC) — mandatory issuance of notice u/s 143(2).
PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC).
CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (SC) — interpretation in favour of assessee where ambiguity exists.
Tribunal’s own decisions including Doulthabji Rajender vs. ITO and Adilakshmi Vangala vs. ITO, emphasizing that incorrect facts cannot extend limitation.
Final Outcome:-The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed as time-barred, rendering all additions void.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 29.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2015-2016.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Invalid Reassessment-Notice u/s 148 not Faceless: The entire reassessment is founded on a notice u/s 148 dated 07.04.2022 issued manually by the jurisdictional AO, contrary to Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless issuance. The reassessment is therefore void ab initio.
2. Time-Barred Reopening under Section 149: The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that for AY 2015-16, only two additions Rs.17,00,000 and Rs.32,17,939 – totaling Rs.49,17,939 were made, representing the alleged income escaping assessment. Hence, the quantum of escapement is less than Rs.50 lakh, and accordingly, the permissible time limit for issuing a notice u/s 148 is three years as per Section 149(1)(a). The notice dated 07.04.2022 was issued beyond this three-year period and is therefore time-barred. The AO duplicated entries to artificially inflate escapement above Rs.50 lakh, which is unjust and contrary to law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
3. Absence of Mandatory Notice u/s 143(2)-Assessment Void: The appellant filed a return of income on 18.10.2023 in response to the notice u/s 148, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and included in the computation of income, and this fact is acknowledged by the CIT(A) in Para 6 of the appellate order. Once a return is filed and accepted, it is mandatory for the A) to issue notice u/s 143(2) before making any variation. Failure to do so renders the reassessment void, as held in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2009) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and Pr. CIT v. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del).
4. Jurisdictional Error in Reopening: The reopening u/s 147 was mechanical, without application of mind or valid satisfaction, and hence bad in law.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessment was completed without affording adequate opportunity or conducting independent verification of the submissions made by the appellant.
6. Addition of Rs.17,00,000 u/s 69A-Unjustified: The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition despite the existence of gift deed, confirmation, and sale deed evidencing the father’s financial capacity to gift.
7. Addition of Rs.32,17,939 u/s 69-Unjustified: The CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the appellant is an NRI and the fixed deposits were from NRE remittances and renewals of earlier FDs, and no contrary evidence was brought by the AO.
8. Failure to Appreciate Evidence Properly: The authorities below disregarded documentary evidence and relied solely on assumptions.
9. Additions Based on Suspicion and Conjecture: The additions are based on mere suspicion and conjecture, unsupported by any tangible material.
10. General Ground: The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.
3. In ground no.2 the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”], 1961 being barred by limitation.
4. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 which is beyond 06 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, in view of proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is invalid being barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Telangana High Court dated 15.04.2026 in the case of Mr. Kondakrindi Madhu Sudhan Reddy vs. ITO, Hyderabad and Others in WP.No.7232 of 2026. He has further submitted that even otherwise the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer is beyond 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and income escaped assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs therefore, as per the provisions of sec.149(1)(b) of the Act the notice is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.
6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the case in hand, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 as under:
6.1. Thus at the outset it is clear that the notice was issued beyond 06 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and therefore, in view of 1 st proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act as exist at the relevant point of time, the notice issued after 06 years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in its latest Judgment in the case of Mr. Kondakrindi Madhu Sudhan Reddy vs. ITO, Hyderabad and Others (supra), has considered this issue in Para nos.2 to 6 as under:
2. The present is the case where notice dated 11.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is under challenge.
3. The Assessment Year in the present case is 2015-2016. In addition to the challenge to the said notice being given by the amendment brought to the Income Tax Act within effect from 01.04.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had also challenged the same on being barred by limitation, as the notice has been issued admittedly beyond the period of six years. The assessment order being 2015-2016, time limit within which notice could have been issued on 31.03.2022 and in the instant case, the notice has been issued admittedly beyond the period of six years i.e. 11.04.2022.
4. On the previous date of hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the Department had taken time to seek instructions.
5. Upon instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner taking into consideration the stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly, in respect of the assessment year 2015-2016 accepts that notice has been in fact issued beyond the period of six years. As such, the notice is barred by limitation,
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. Notice dated 11.04.2022 stands set aside/quashed and the consequent assessment order also stands set aside/quashed. No order as to costs.”
6.2. Thus in view of the binding precedent, we hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 dated 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation and the same is set aside. Further in the case in hand, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to re-assess the income escaped assessment, details of which, are given at Page-2 of the assessment order as under:
6.3. Finally the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.49,17,939/- by considering three transactions of deposit in the bank account i.e., Rs.22,13,779/- and Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.17 lakhs. As it is manifest from the details that at the time of issuing the notice u/sec.148 of the Act the Assessing Officer considered the amount of Rs.17 lakhs twice under the category of ”deposit of cash of Rs.10 lakhs or more as well as ”deposit of cash of Rs.2 lakhs or more ” as reported by the bank. Once the transaction of deposit is taken above Rs.2 lakhs without any upper limit then, again taking the same transaction in the category of above Rs.10 lakhs is an absurdity on the part of the Assessing Officer. Hence, it is evident and manifest from the record that the total deposit in the bank account as per the information was only Rs.49,17,939/- and not Rs.50 lakhs or more and therefore, the limitation for issuing the notice as per the amended provisions of sec.149 vide Finance Act, 2021 is three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case in hand, undisputedly the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and therefore, the same is barred by limitation and liable to be set aside on this ground as well.
6.4. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in series of decisions and in the latest decision dated 23.04.2026 in the case of Doulthabji Rajender, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal in ITA.No.2308/ Hyd./2025, the Tribunal has considered this issue in Para nos.8 to 8.3 as under:
”8.We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act dated 05.03.2024 which reads as under:
–
8.1. Thus the Assessing Officer has considered the income escaped assessment on account of cash deposit in the bank account with IDBI Bank total amounting to Rs.1,33,22,500/- comprising of cash deposit of Rs.19,50,000/- as well as Rs.1,13,72,500/-. It is pertinent to note that earlier the Assessing Officer has also issued notice u/sec.148A(a) of the Act dated 12.01.2024 calling the information from the assessee to verify the transaction of cash deposit in the bank account and in response to the said notice, the assessee filed reply dated 03.02.2024 along with ledger account, bank account statements etc. In the said reply, the assessee has explained that the assessee was having 02 bank accounts i.e., Savings Bank A/c as well as Loan A/c with IDBI Bank. In both the accounts the total cash deposit during the year was Rs.19,50,000/-. Copies of the bank account of the assessee are also placed at page nos.5 to 8 of the paper book as under:
6.2. Thus, it is clear that even at the time of passing the Order u/sec.148A(d), the Assessing Officer has considered the same amount of cash deposits without even verifying the bank account statement of the assessee. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer finally held that the only transaction of cash deposit during the year is Rs.38,10,000/- which is added to the total income of the assessee as under:
“Finding of the case
Section 69A of the Act deals with money etc, owned by the assessee and found in possession including in the bank accounts of the assessee which remain unexplained. The said section is reproduced below for ready reference:
Section 69A-Unexplained Money
“Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.”
In the present case, the assessee has deposited cash in the bank account amounting to Rs. 38,10,000/- which is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, since she has not offered an acceptable or cogent explanation regarding the source thereof. As discussed above, the explanation offered by the assessee are entirely by self-serving documents without third party evidence.”
6.3. Therefore, it is a case of wrong and incorrect facts or rather non-existing fact and transaction in the bank account of the assessee considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of issuing the show cause notice u/sec.148A(b); at the time of passing the Order u/sec.148A(d) as well as issuing notice u/sec.148 of the Act. Undisputedly, the actual transaction of deposit of cash is found to be only Rs.38,10,000/- and therefore, the case of the assessee falls in the category of income escaped assessment less than Rs.50 lakhs and consequently, as per the provisions of sec.149(1)(b) of the Act, the limitation for issuing the notice u/sec.148A is only 03 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. There is no dispute that the notice u/sec.148 of the Act issued on 24.03.2023 is beyond 03 years and therefore, the same is time barred and invalid. It is pertinent to note that if a notice based on the correct and actual facts is invalid then, the same cannot be treated as valid by considering incorrect and nonexisting facts and hence, the period of limitation provided u/sec.149(1)(b) of the Act cannot be enlarged or extended on the basis of incorrect facts or non-existing facts. It is a case of nonexisting transaction of cash deposit which are considered by the Assessing Officer and not a case that the transaction of deposit is rightly considered by the Assessing Officer however, the assessee was able to explain the source during the assessment proceedings and finally the Assessing Officer after accepting the source of cash deposit made an addition which is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, there is no quarrel on the point that the addition finally made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment would not necessarily render the case of the assessee in the category of ”income escaped assessment is less than or more than Rs.50 lakhs’ but the primary facts are relevant to consider whether the income escaped assessment is less than or more than Rs.50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ARB Hotels Resorts (P.) Ltd., vs. Pr. CCIT (supra) however, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has made a specific observation in Para no.22 as under:
“22. Last, we may also note as a Court of equity, the writ Court may not be persuaded to drop the entire proceedings at the fag end on a purely technical submission. Yet, that submission is not being accepted in the present facts. On a general principle, once component of escapement exists, it has to be finally determined by the assessing authority. We therefore refrain ourselves from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction to quash the entire proceedings at this late stage. To that rule of equity and good conscience, we abide
(iii) Considering the facts of the case and decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on similar issue, the contention of the assessee is not found to be acceptable and hence rejected.”
6.4.Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court has declined to accept the objection of the assessee which is purely technical in nature in the writ proceedings and therefore, challenging the validity of the notice u/sec.148 of the Act based on the factual finding given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order would not render the notice u/sec.148 as time barred. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Krishna Reddy Venkatsan, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Tiruvallur (supra), has considered this issue in Para nos.2 to 6 as under:
”2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the notice under Section 148A(b), the reply thereto and the impugned order. In spite of providing the bank statement for the relevant period, learned counsel submits that it is erroneously recorded therein that the details of the bank statement needs to be verified.
3. Mr. B. Ramana Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, submits in reply that the assessee is under an obligation to establish that the amount escaping assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. He submits further that both the cash deposit and the time deposit qualify as assets and that the assessing officer was justified in adding the two to compute total income escaping assessment.
4. The operative paragraph of the impugned order reads as under:
“3. In response to the said notice u/s 148A(b), assessee replied on 28.03.2022. According to assessee “He deposited in cash Rs.25,90,000/-and the same has been deposited as fixed deposit. Hence, the amount of income escaped is less than 50 lakhs.” Assessee submitted bank statement also for the relevant financial year.
I have considered the reply of assessee and the same is not acceptable because of the following reasons:
Though the assessee stated as the cash deposit again deposited as fixed deposit, the details of bank statement and others need to be verified.
Thus income in the form of asset has escaped assessment is not less than Rs.50 lakhs.“
5. It is evident from the above that the assessing officer failed to examine the bank statement so as to verify whether the cash deposits were used for purposes of creating the fixed deposit. In spite of the assessee providing the bank statement, this exercise was not undertaken. Without undertaking this exercise, it cannot be rationally determined as to whether income in the form of an asset of the value not less than Rs 50,00,000/- had escaped assessment during the relevant assessment year.
6. On perusal of the bank statement, it appears that the petitioner has an arguable case to contend that the cash deposits were used for purposes of creating the fixed deposit. Therefore, the matter warrants reconsideration. Consequently, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the I-T Act are set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued under Section 148A(d) of the I-T Act within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.5. Thus, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has noted the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the bank statement so as to verify correct and actual transactions of cash deposit and then set aside the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh Order u/sec.148A(d) of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Naresh Balachandra Rao Shinde vs. ITO (supra), has also considered this issue in Para nos.6 to 9 as under:
”6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the documents on record. To consider whether the writ petition could be entertained, it would be necessary to refer to certain undisputed facts. The notice under section 148 A(b) dated 23-3-2022 grants time to the petitioner to respond to the same by 29-3-2022. The period as granted is less than seven days as prescribed by section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. Nevertheless, the petitioner has responded to the notice by his reply dated 29-3-2022.
Along with the reply, copy of the registered sale deed dated 3-22015 indicating that it was his daughter who had purchased the immovable property therein was supplied. The petitioner’s daughter is separately assessed for tax. The name of the petitioner is mentioned as special power of attorney holder for his daughter. The registered sale deed clearly indicates that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the immovable property mentioned therein but it is his daughter, a separate assessee. The amount of consideration mentioned is Rs.40,00,000/- and it is stated that the purchaser had availed housing loan for the same. On a bare perusal of the registered sale deed, it becomes evident that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the said property as stated in the notice issued under section 14BA (b) of the Act of 1961. Despite supplying copy of the registered sale deed to the Assessing Officer, it has not been taken into consideration by him before passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961. The same thus clearly indicates lack of application of judicious mind to the material on record. The amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as mentioned in the notice issued on 23-3-2022 under section 148A(b) thus deserves to be excluded from consideration.
7. As regards deposit of cash of Rs.16,20,000/- is concerned, the petitioner had sought disclosure of the material of the source of information on the basis of which such notice was issued. The petitioner denied having deposited the aforesaid amount in his bank account. The material/source of information was not supplied to the petitioner. Be that as it may, even if the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as mentioned in the notice dated 23-32022 is excluded from consideration for the reason that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the property in question, the amount remaining for consideration is Rs.20,71,500/- and Rs.16,20,000/- thus totaling Rs.36,91,500/-, In this regard, if the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 are considered, it is seen that only if the amount in question that is likely to have escaped assessment is Rs.50,00,000/- or more, the time limit for issuing notice to re-open the assessment is three years but less than ten years. Thus if the income that is likely to escape assessment is only Rs.36,91,500/- after excluding the amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, it is clear that the proceedings are not liable to be re-opened as the amount involved is less than the one contemplated under section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 and the same pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. The notice under section 148(b) is dated 23-3-2022 which is beyond the permissible period of three years. On this count, a case for interference has been made out.
8. In the light of this undisputed position, it would be futile to require the petitioner to face proceedings under section 148 of the Act of 1961. The material on record that was placed before the Assessing Officer warranted consideration especially in the light of the fact that the document relied was a registered sale deed. If the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- mentioned therein is excluded from consideration, the notice as issued on 23-3-2022 falls foul of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961. Hence for this reason, we do not find that the petitioner should be required to further contest the proceedings under section 148 of the Act of 1961.
9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31/3/2022 passed under section 145A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as notice dated 31-3-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act of 1961 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.”
6.6.Therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC), we follow the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the actual transaction of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee is only Rs.38,10,000/- then, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer after 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration is barred by limitation and liable to be set aside. We Order accordingly.”
8.3.Thus, the notice issued u/sec.148of the Act after 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and the correct amount of cash deposit in the bank account is less than Rs.50 lakhs then, the same is barred by limitation. A notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act and the actual facts of transaction of cash deposit in the bank account are juxtaposed then, the period of limitation for issuing the notice u/sec.148 would be considered by considering the correct facts and not on the basis of the nonexisting facts. Hence, an invalid notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act on account of barred by limitation cannot be converted to a valid notice by enlarging the limitation based on nonexisting facts. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the actual transaction of cash deposit is Rs.19,50,000/- only then, the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act would be barred by limitation being issued beyond 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR would not help the case of the Revenue in the facts of the present case. Since we have set aside the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act which also vitiates the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the other grounds including the additional ground raised by the assessee become infructuous and are not being taken up for adjudication.
6.5.Accordingly, in view of various binding Judgments on this issue, we follow the earlier decision of this Tribunal and hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act is not valid being barred by limitation as issued after six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and therefore, beyond the limitation period provided u/sec.149(1)(b) being three years as well as in view of first proviso to sec.149(1) beyond six years. Since, we have set aside the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act which also vitiates the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer therefore, the other grounds raised by the assessee would become infructuous and are not being taken up for adjudication nor were argued.
7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.04.2026.
Author Bio
