TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction to decide the appeal of the assessee as the jurisdiction lies with the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal and accordingly, the Chennai Benches has given the liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeal before Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal within a period of three months. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the present appeal was filed by the assessee within the time limit allowed by the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is due to time consumed in pursing remedy by filing the appeal before the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal. He has thus pleaded that the delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has not raised any serious objection for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the record, at the outset, we find that the assessee filed appeal before the Chennai Benches of this Tribunal in ITA.No,.2029/CHNY./2025 against the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) however,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lacks jurisdiction to reopen the case. 4. JAO in Hyderabad should have migrated my PAN to correct JAO Chennai and the assumption of jurisdiction by JAO Hyderabad is false, incorrect and not in accordance with law. 5. JAO lacks jurisdiction since there was no reopening took place in the case of other co-sellers for the sale value of Rs. 8,29,00,000/-. Other co-sellers would not have declared sale value of Rs. 8,29,00,000/- in their returns of income. The action of AO is in opposition to equity, fair conduct and justice. 6. FAO erred in assuming that there was a sale of property for the value of Rs. 8,29,00,000/- without any supporting document like copy of sale deed, etc.., The action of AO merely on the basis of information available in the portal is unjustified. There was no sale of property for Rs. 8,29,00,000/-. 7. FAO erred in assuming the share value of Rs. 1,65,80,000/- as short term. In fact, it is long term capital asset. Since there was reinvestment there is no taxable long term capital gain. 8. FAO erred in assuming that I have purchased a property for Rs. 1,60,00,000/-based on mere information in the portal without an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, there was a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal therefore, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. 9. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the Order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessment order was passed by the Faceless Assessment Centre and therefore, the order was also sent through email. The assessee took the plea that the physical copy of the notice and orders were sent to the old address whereas all the communications were sent through email in digital form. He has objected to the condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A). 10. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The learned CIT(A) has recorded reasons explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal in Para no.2.3 as under: "I was not aware that the assessment was reopened and also unaware of the of the reopening notices and subsequent assessment proceedings. I have not received any communication and there was no alert message. The speed post communication was also sent to the Chennai address which was sold about ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee and the learned DR on the admission of additional ground. It is also pertinent to note that for adjudication of the above additional ground, no fresh material or record or facts are required to be investigated, verified or considered, but the same can be adjudicated on the basis of the material and facts already on record. Accordingly, by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs., CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee for hearing and adjudication. 13. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO & Anr. vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti in SLP (Civil) No.8682 of 2024, dated 04.05.2026 and submitted that this Tribunal in case of Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.758 /Hyd./2025, dated 17.04.2026 by following the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal in the case of Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.758 /Hyd./2025, dated 17.04.2026 in Para nos.9 to 9.4 as under: "9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the case in hand, the Assessing Officer has issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act on 19.03.2022 as under: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.1. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed an Order u/sec.148A(d) of the Act on 15.04.2022 and issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 15.04.2022 as under: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.2. Thus, the notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 15.04.2022 which is undisputedly beyond the period of 06 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2015-2016. As per the unamended provisions of sec.148 of the Act, the notice u/sec.148 of the Act could be issued within the period of 06 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. However, as per the amended provisions for reopening u/sec.148A and 148 r.w.s.149 of the Act, the limitation for reopening of the assessment has been reduced from 06 years to 03 ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more; Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1 day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C. as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021; Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order er injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the Immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A does not exceed seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year; (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but nor more than six years, have elapsed trees the end of the relevant assessment year unless the chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any city) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. Explanation in determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be treated as the agent of a non-res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue is therefore obliged to adhere to the timeline prescribed under Section 149 of the Act for issuance of such notice and undertake the procedure before issuance of notice under Section 148A of the Act. 13. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to opinion of the Delhi High Court. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Godrej Industries Ltd., (supra) are extracted hereunder: "15. The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present case is 31st July 2022, by which time the Finance Act, 2021 is already on the statute and in terms thereof, no notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15 could be issued on or after" April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proviso could not save such notices The fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the time limit of three years and ten years in Section 149(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce is beyond the restriction period, the notice is invalid, and the fifth and/or the sixth proviso cannot apply at this stage to extend the period of restriction as per first proviso. Hence, if a notice is not within the time prescribed under first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, then such period cannot be extended by fifth or sixth proviso. In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Court had relied upon another judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Lid. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2024) 160 tasmann.com 13 (Bombay)/(2024) 338 CTR (Bom) 25, which was also authored by one of us (the Chief Justice), where paragraph No.15 reads as under: "15 The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present case is 31" July 2022, by which time the Finance Act, 2021 is already on the statute and in terms thereof, no notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15 could be issued on or after 1" April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in case where the first proviso applies beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving tax effect of Rs. 30,59,10,000/- excluding interest. 2. From the tax audit report in Farm 3CD, it is observed that the assessee's company has not paid employees contribution to PF within the due dates prescribed under the acts. In view of the same, the same has to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The AO has not made any disallowance u/s 35(1)(va). Hence, an amount of Rs. 6,35,949/- shall be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va). Tax effect (excluding interest) of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is Rs. 2.20,089/- 3. As verified from 3CD report, assessee was shown the an amount of Rs. 78,26,412/- additions to the block of assets. During the assessment proceedings, assessee has not given details and supporting evidences about additions to the block of assets. Hence, the AO has not verified the genuineness of the additions to the block of assets. Hence, the depreciation claimed of Rs. 78,26,412/- is not allowable and the same has to be added to the total income of the assessee. The tax effect of disallowing depreciation is Rs. 27,08,565/-" 18. The reasons mentioned in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are also extracted hereunder: "5.1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be said to have been pending. 5. In that view of the matter, during the pendency of the proceedings under section 154 of the Act, it was not permissible on the part of the Revenue to initiate the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act pending the proceedings under section 154 of the Act. The High Court has erred in presuming and observing that the proceedings under section 154 were invalid because the same were beyond the period of limitation." 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the second issue raised by the petitioner is also required to be answered in the affirmative. 21. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18 are barred by limitation and accordingly, set aside." 9.3. Thus, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Telangana High Court has held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 22.04.2024 was beyond the time limit stipulated u/sec.149(1)(a) of the Act though the show cause notice dated 28.03.2024 was well within the time limit. In the case in ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 is barred by limitation in view of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and consequently the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. dated 28.11.2023 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 19. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited Vs. D.C.I.T. (supra). A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in the case of A.C.I.T. Vs. Manish Financial in ITA No. 5055/Mum/2024 (supra), wherein the coordinate Bench, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, held as under: "6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case, the AO issued the original notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 and consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022. The contention of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 148 issued for 2015-16 being time barred is considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it is held that *****For the A.Y.2015-16, the Revenue itself has contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the notices issued on or after 01/04/2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. Here notice w/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015-16 has been issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by limitation under the new provision of Section 149(1) and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly, all the notices are quashed being barred by limitation on the reasons given above and we are not going on the reasons given by the Id. CIT (A) for quashing the notice." 8. A combined reading of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of coordinate bench makes it clear that the test for checking the validity of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for AYs 2021-22 or prior years is whether the period of six years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in that case the notice under section 148 becomes inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal in case of Sudheer Parimala, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad (supra) has held that the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act after expiry of 06 years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Sai Kumar Mateti [2026] 187 taxmann.com 225 (SC) has re-affirmed this position regarding the validity of the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act after expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation in Para nos.3 to 7 as under: "3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh (2026) 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters. 4. The instant cases were segregated through the abovementioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, repres....