Brijesh Chandwani Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Hyderabad Tribunal examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by AO through notice u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022. For AY 2016-17, original scrutiny u/s 143(3) was completed on 19.12.2018. AO issued an old-regime 148 notice on 30.06.2021—the last day of the TOLA-extended period. By virtue of Ashish Agarwal (SC), this notice was deemed to be 148A(b). AO then issued 148A(b) SCN on 25.05.2022, passed 148A(d) order on 29.07.2022 & simultaneously issued final 148 notice on 29.07.2022.
Tribunal, applying Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal (SC), held that where the deemed 148A(b) notice was issued on 30.06.2021 itself, the surviving period was “zero days”. By statutory mandate, minimum period of 7 days under 4th proviso to sec.149(1) had to be added. Adding 14 days for the assessee’s reply window (3rd proviso to sec.149), the last permissible date to issue the final 148 notice was 14.06.2022. Since AO issued notice only on 29.07.2022, it was 45 days beyond the surviving limit. Tribunal relied on Madras HC (Thulasidass Prabhavathi), Delhi HC (Ram Balram Buildhome), Punjab & Haryana HC (Kulwant Singh), Raipur/Mumbai/Pune Bench decisions & held the notice time-barred.
Separately, Tribunal noted another fatal defect. Since AY 2016-17 reopening was beyond 3 years, approval had to be obtained from the PCCIT/PDGIT as mandated u/s 151(ii). However, AO obtained approval only from the PCIT, as shown explicitly in the notice. Following Rajeev Bansal (SC), Siemens Financial Services (Bom HC) & Hyderabad Bench rulings in Raziulla Syed & Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Tribunal held that approval by Pr.CIT was incompetent for notices beyond 3 years.
