Limitation on section 148 notice led to quashing of reassessment as void ab initio under the post-Ashish Agarwal regime.

The ITAT Delhi held that the second notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation under the post-Ashish Agarwal regime, as the notice was issued beyond the surviving time period and the Revenue did not dispute the sequence of events. Relying on Ram Balram Buildhome and Ashish Agarwal, the Tribunal found the reassessment founded on that notice unsustainable and quashed it as bad in law and void ab initio. The appeal was partly allowed, and the merits were left open as academic.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation and, if so, whether the reassessment based on that notice was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The assessee challenged the second notice under section 148 on the ground that it was issued after the surviving period contemplated in the post-Ashish Agarwal regime and beyond the limitation applicable to the case. The sequence of events was not controverted by the Revenue. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Ram Balram Buildhome and the Supreme Court decision in Ashish Agarwal to test the timeliness of the notice and the consequent reassessment.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 was held to be barred by limitation, and the reassessment framed on its basis was quashed as bad in law and void ab initio. The appeal was partly allowed, with the merits left open as academic.

---