TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he draft order was dictated and was prepared within 90 days from the date of hearing however could not be pronounced due to Hon'ble Judicial Member, Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey being on leave from 18th August, 2025 to 22nd August, 2025. Therefore, this is being pronounced on 25th August, 2025. 03. The assessee pressed ground no.2 which is against the assessment reopened u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) despite the fact that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2013-14 and assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,10,297/-. The assessee's case has been identified and flagged by Director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee to reply was 14 days which expires on (Third proviso to section 149(1), now 5th) 08.06.2022 Surviving Time of 0 day (30-06-2021-30-06-2021) expires on which is the time barring date for issue of notice u/s 148 08.06.2022 Notice u/s 148 of the Act under new regime issued on 26.07.2022 06. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag private Limited Vs. ACIT in W.P.(C) 4583/2023 vide order dated 06.05.2025, wherein the facts of the decision passed by the Hon'ble court is extracted below: - "2. The initial notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 was issued on 30.06.2021. The said notice was unsustainable as it was issued in accordance with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and material relied upon by the Revenue for issuance of such notices, to the respective assessee's within a period of thirty days from the date of the decision so as to enable the respective assessee's to respond to the same. 4. In compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Assessing Officer [AO] provided information and material to the Assessee on 25.05.2022. The Assessee was granted two weeks' time to respond to the said notice. The Assessee responded to the notice dated 25.05.2022 by a letter dated 09.06.2022. 5. The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 19.07.2022. According to the Assessee, the same was beyond the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available to the assessee to respond to the said notice is also required to be excluded by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, as applicable at the material time. 8. In the present case, the time period for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act expired on 16.06.2022. However, the impugned notice was issued on 20.07.2022, which is beyond the said period. Thus, the notice was beyond the period of limitation. 9. This court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025: DHC:547-DB observed as under: - "53. As is apparent from the plain language of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, it extends the period of limitation for iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be three years (after excluding the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act) and seven days, or a period of ten years (after excluding the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act) and seven days as the case may be. 54. It is obvious, that in such a case, the AO would not have a time for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as stipulated under the said Clause, that is, one month from the end of the month in which the assessee furnishes a reply to the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. As noted above, the AO is required to complete the entire procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act in furtherance of his carlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. 68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 the period of two weeks is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date. 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of com....