TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. In the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Society the delay of 03 days is explained as under: "AFFIDAVIT I, T. Suresh, son of Sri T. Laxmaiah, resident of Botiguda, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under. I am the Secretary of the assessee society and as such I know the facts of the case. The petitioner society filed the above mentioned Cross Objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1978/Hyd/2025. The appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT was filed by the Revenue on 20.11.25. The date of receipt of notice of appeal filed is 28.01.2026. The period of 30 days for filing the Cross Objection ends on 27.02.2026. The Cross Objection was filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble ITAT on 2.3.2026. There is a delay of 3 days in filing the Cross Objection. The petitioner in this regard submits that during the relevant period i.e. on 28.2.2026 the Secretary of the petitioner society retired from service of the Society on attaining the age of superannuation. There was a delay in appointing the new incumbent to the office of the Secretary. The petitioner is submitting a copy of the interna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-operative Audit Department and an authorised Chartered Accountant within the statutory time limits prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to comply with these retirements. Further, the audit report submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings is invalid, as it neither bears the signature of an authorised Chartered Accountant nor is it certified by the State Cooperative Audit Department. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to apprec...e that the assessee's return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 was filed only on 17.07.2022 in response to a notice under Section 148 dated 04.04.2022-far beyond the statutory due date and therefore the assessee was not entitled to claim dedi ion under Section 80P, in view of the restriction under Section 80A(5) as affirmed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the above-mentioned judgment. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the estimated addition made by the Assessing Officer without identifying any defect in the Assessing Officer's reasoning and without establishing the correctness or completeness of the assessee's claim of nil income, particularly when the assessee had not cooperated during asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders holding that the order of assessment is not valid." 7. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as learned DR on the admission of additional ground of cross objection. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has raised the ground before the learned CIT(A) challenging the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148A along with 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. However, the learned CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee on merits in favour of the assessee and therefore, the legal ground raised by the assessee has not been adjudicated by the learned CIT(A). Hence, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has raised this ground before the Tribunal which was not adjudicated by the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned DR has objected for admission of the additional ground of cross objection. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the record at the outset we note that the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment is Rs. 50 lakhs or more. This limitation is provided under the amended provisions u/sec.149 of the Act under Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec.(1) of the said section. The learned DR has further submitted that as per the proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act, in a case where the limitation for issuing notice u/sec.148 already expired before 01.04.2021, then the notice u/sec.148 of the Act cannot be issued under the new amended provisions extending the limitation from 06 years to 10 years. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that the proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act is applicable only in cases where the limitation of 06 years as per the un-amended provisions of reopening expired before 01.04.2021 and therefore, if the limitation for issuing the notice u/sec.148 of the Act was available as on 01.04.2021, then the limitation for issuing the notice u/sec.148 shall be as per the amended provisions of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) as well as Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Salil Gulati vs. ACIT [2023[ 455 ITR 24 (Del.) (HC). The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the case of the assessee, the income escaped assessment was more than Rs. 50 lakhs and therefore, the 1st proviso to sec.149(1) would not apply to the case of the assessee. This contention of the learned DR is not acceptable in view of the plain language of the proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act which has been considered and interpreted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Telangana High Court in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra) in Para nos.10 to 21 as under: "10. This, we say so for the following reasons: In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the position of law stands clear as regards the operation of amended Section 149(1) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 49 and 53 thereof are extracted hereunder: "49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1xb) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the (a) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assessee's." "53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus (1) Section 140(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (4) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the tune limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or any assessment year beginning on or before the 1 day of April, 2012. ---------------- 12. Apparently, the fifth and sixth provisos of the amended Section 149 of the Act extracted hereinabove provide for excluding certain periods while computing the period of limitation as per the amended Section. It prescribes the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per the show cause notice under clause (b) of Section 148 of the Act or the period during which the proceeding under Section 148A of the Act is stayed shall be excluded. The sixth proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act also deals with exclusion of the period referred to in the fifth proviso i.e., the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act if it does not exceed seven days. In that event, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended. Accordingly, both the fifth and sixth provisos in the first place do not amount to clarification of the first proviso. These two provisos qualify the substantive amended Section 149 of the Act and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Ltd., (supra) is also extracted hereunder. "12. In this case, as it pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18, six years period would have expired on 31 March 2024 whereas notice under Section 148 of the Act itself came to be issued on 1 May 2024. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for Revenue, made an attempt to argue that fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would save the period of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. We are afraid we do not agree with him. Same argument was raised in Hexaware Technologies Lid (supra) and was rejected. The Court held, with respect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act ie, three years or ten years, as the case may be. The Court also held that fifth and sixth provisos extend limitation for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, first proviso is an exception to the period of limitation and provides for a restriction on the notices under Section 148 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uishable as it relates to the Assessment Year 2020-21 in respect of which the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 28.03.2024. The petitioner therein had assailed the notice on the ground that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to undertake the assessment for the Assessment Year 2020-21 after 31.03.2024 with reference to the second notice issued on 22.04.2024 as it was beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act. In the aforesaid facts, the learned Court held that the combined reading of the fifth and sixth provisos meant that the first notice dated 28.03.2024 was issued well within the time limit stipulated. Therefore, the Assessment Officer has jurisdiction. 16. In view of the above discussion, the initiation of reopening of assessment by the impugned notice dated 22.04.2024 is barred by limitation being beyond the period of six (6) years reckoned from the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 as per the un-amended Section 149 of the Act read with the first proviso thereof brought into effect from 01.04.2021. 17. We are also in agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not in order. 5.2. Further, the assessee furnished partial bills/vouchers towards additions made to fixed assets for the Y 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18. Since the volumes of the information furnished the same needs to be verified further with third party confirmations, Therefore, the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 78,26,412 is still stand unexplained with proper evidence." 19. The Revenue has not disclosed as to whether the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act had ended up in passing of an order. Even then, the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act would amount to a change in opinion which is not permissible in law. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in S.M. Overseas (P.) Ltd., (supra) on the proposition that parallel proceedings cannot be initiated for reopening of the assessment during pendency of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. Paras 4 and 5 of the said decision are also quoted hereunder: "4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show cause notice. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Peda Subbarao Unnam vs. ITO (supra) in Para nos.17 to 20 as under: "17. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant notice issued by the A.O. under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.04.2022 in the light of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act states that, no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of Section 149 of the Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. 18. In the present case, the assessment year involved is 2015- 16 and as per the unamended provisions of Section 149, if the income escaped assessment is more than Rs. 1 lakh, then the assessment can be reopened up to six years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....** (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act is liable to be quashed. 9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time barred the other legal contentions raised by the assessee in the CO have become academic not warranting any adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed. 10. We have quashed the order of re-assessment for AY 2015- 16 considering the legal contentions raised by the assessee in the C.O. therefore the appeals of the revenue for AY 2015-16 contending the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed." 20. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, we hold that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.04.2022 is barred by limitation and therefore the consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 147 r.w.s. Section 144 of the Act dated 28.11.2023 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." ....