Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18 issued on 07.05.2024 are barred by limitation in view of the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) and governing principles in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) and subsequent consistent decisions.
Analysis: The notice and order relate to Assessment Year 2017-18 and were issued on 07.05.2024. The applicable limitation for issuance of a reassessment notice for that assessment year is governed by the time limits preserved by the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as interpreted in Rajeev Bansal (2024). Under that framework, a notice under Section 148 of the post-2021 regime cannot be issued for assessment years on or before 1 April 2021 if the six-year limitation under the old regime had expired at the time of issuance. For AY 2017-18 the six-year period expired on 31.03.2024; issuance on 07.05.2024 therefore falls outside the preserved time limit. Subsequent High Court decisions applying Rajeev Bansal to notices issued for AY 2017-18 on similar dates have set aside such orders and notices as time-barred.
Conclusion: The reassessment order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 dated 07.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18 are quashed as barred by limitation; the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits flowing from quashment.