Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 06 ITAT CK 1480

Anil Kumar Singh vs ITO Ward-30(5), Delhi

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 5 June 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA 4288/DEL/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 406 words

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 30.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Dishnat Sethi, appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submits that the reopening of assessment is bad in law as the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.07.2022 is beyond limitation. He submits that the case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, 167 taxmann.com 70/469 ITR 46. The ld. Counsel furnished a table of relevant dates and events to support his contention.

3.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently supported findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) on merits as well as validity of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The assessee by way of ground no. 1 of appeal has assailed validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The ld. Counsel has furnished a table of relevant dates and events, the same is extracted herein below:-

S No.ParticularsDate
1.First Notice issued u/s 148 for AY 2017-1824.06.2021 (PB 14)
2.Period of limitation as per TOLA30.06.2021
3.Surviving Period6 days
4.Information provided by AO as per direction in case of Ashish Agarwal (148A(b) Notice)01.06.2022 (PB 17-18)
5.Time provided to file reply to 148A(b) notice16.06.2022 (PB 17-18)
6.Assessee filed reply against 148A(b) notice on16.06.2022 (PB 25-27)
7.Time Limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal23.06.2022
8.Order u/s 148A(d) passed on (after taking approval of Ld. PCIT)27.07.2022 (PB 29-32)
9.Notice u/s 148 issued on29.07.2022 (PB 29-32)

The dates and events given in above table have not been disputed by the Revenue.

5.

From examination of above dates it is evident that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is time barred, hence, without jurisdiction. The limitation for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act was 23.06.2022, whereas notice was issued on 29.07.2022. Any proceedings arising from notice without jurisdiction are void ab initio, hence, the assessment made u/s.147 r.ws. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 09.03.2023 is without jurisdiction, hence, quashed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.