Om Wati vs ITO

PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.:

The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment order dated 24.01.2023 passed under Section147 r.w.s.144Bof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Brief facts of the case is this that the return of income was filed under Section 139(1) of the Act on 02.08.2016 by the Assessee declaring income at Rs.3,53,210/- which was subsequently reopened on account of cash deposit of Rs.11,05,000/-, in a SB account in the year under consideration by issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 21.07.2022 which was finalized upon making addition of Rs.6,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence the instant appeal before us.

The issue before us is that the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the Order under Section 148A(d) was time barred for 17days in view of the following facts:

Above such facts have notbeen able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. In fact the issue is found to be squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2693. In that matter, in view of the order under Section 148A(d) is found to be barred by limitation as per provision of Section 149(1) of the Act, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was quashed as barred by limitation. Thus, respectfully relying upon the above Judgment, the order issued under Section 148A (d) of the Act before us, on the identical facts and circumstances of the matter as barred by limitation is, thus, quashed. Consequently the assessment order becomes void ab initio and therefore, quashed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.