Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai: Corrigendum Cannot Cure Defective Section 148 Notice

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 11799
Case Name
Domet Trading Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2008-09
Advertisement

Domet Trading Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Corrigendum Cannot Cure Time-Bar: ITAT Mumbai Quashes 147 Reopening as No Valid 148 Notice Issued Before 31.03.2015

Assessee, Domet Trading Pvt. Ltd., filed return for AY 2008-09 declaring ₹13.98 lakh. Based on information alleging accommodation entries, AO issued a notice u/s 148 dated 23.02.2015; however, the notice mentioned AY 2009-10 instead of AY 2008-09. AO attempted to correct this by issuing a corrigendum only on 07.04.2015, after the statutory limitation of 31.03.2015 for issuing a valid 148 notice for AY 2008-09. Assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2016 with addition of ₹63,77,622 u/s 68 based on alleged hawala loans from the Bhanwarlal Jain group.

Assessee filed a physical appeal in Form 35 on 20.04.2016—well within limitation—and even received notices of hearing from the jurisdictional CIT(A). However, upon migration to the e-appeal system, CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the electronically filed appeal as delayed by 1,037 days, ignoring the fact that a valid physical appeal was already filed & entertained.

Before Tribunal, Assessee submitted that (i) physical appeal was within time, (ii) CIT(A) failed to condone delay caused entirely by portal glitches, & (iii) reopening was void because no valid notice u/s 148 existed on or before 31.03.2015. Tribunal focused on the jurisdictional defect and held that the notice dated 23.02.2015, addressed to a wrong assessment year, was invalid, and the corrigendum issued after the limitation date could not cure this substantive defect. As on 31.03.2015, no valid 148 notice existed; hence, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

ITAT held that the reopening itself was bad in law & quashed the entire 147 proceedings. All other grounds—including 68 addition & 143(2) notice arguments—were rendered academic.

Appeal of the Assessee was allowed in full.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 11.07.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2008-09.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,941

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.