COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2, MUMBAI V. NISHA THOMAS, MUMBAI

MA 73/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Initially, the Tribunal had ruled the notice invalid based on the income escaping assessment being less than Rs. 50,00,000 and the notice being issued beyond the permissible time limit. The revenue contended that the income escaping assessment was Rs. 60,10,000, not Rs. 25,00,000 as previously held by the Tribunal. Upon reviewing the facts and the notice, the Tribunal agreed with the revenue's contention regarding the amount of income escaping assessment but maintained the decision on the limitation of the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314425 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.co 225 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN KAKKAD; KRISHNA KUMAR
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM M.A. No. 73/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2764/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ITO(IT)-4(1)(1), Room No. 629, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue-3, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Vs. Ms. Nisha Thomas Flat No. 203, A-10, Tejasvi Apartment, Saibaba Nagar, Mira Road (East), Maharashtra-401107 PAN: AKCPT1993K Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the revenue seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2764/Mum/2024 dated 15.07.2024 for AY 2015-16. 2 M.A No.73/Mum/2025 Ms. Nisha Thomas 2. The Tribunal in the above order while adjudicating the ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.co 225 (Bom.). The Tribunal held that the time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the impugned notice dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation as per the 1st proviso to section 149 of the Act. The Tribunal further held that in assessee's case the income escaping assessment is Rs. 25,00,000/- and therefore as per the CBDT Instruction No.1 /2022 dated 11.05.2022 notice under section 148 for AY 2015-16 in assessee's case could not be issued since the income escaping is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Tribunal on that ground also held the notice under section 148 to be invalid. 3. The revenue in the present MA has raised the contention that the income escaping assessment in assessee's case is Rs. 60,10,000/- and not Rs. 25,00,000/- as has been held by the Tribunal. During the course of hearing the ld. DR submitted that the assessee for the impugned year did not file the return of income and that based on the information received from the search operations the AO noticed that the assessee has purchased a property for Rs. 35,10,000/- towards which cash of Rs. 25,00,000/- is allegedly paid to the Builder. The ld. DR further submitted that the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act stating that the income to the tune of Rs. 60,10,000/- i.e. Rs.35,10,000 + Rs.25,00,000 has escaped assessment. The ld. DR in this regard drew our attention to the relevant notices issued (page 1 to 4 of PB). Accordingly the ld DR submitted that the findings of the Tribunal in Para 12 of the above order is factually incorrect and needs to be rectified 3 M.A No.73/Mum/2025 Ms. Nisha Thomas 4. We heard the parties. From the perusal of facts as enumerated above along with the notice issued under section 148 we see merit in the contention of the revenue that the income escaping assessment as per the notice under section 148 is Rs.60,10,000/- and that holding the notice as invalid on that ground is not correct. We therefore modify the above order of the Tribunal by removing Paragraph No.12 in the impugned order and by renumbering Paragraph No.13, 14 & 15 as Paragraph No.12, 13 & 14. However it is relevant to mention here that removal of Paragraph No.12 will not modify our final decision of holding the notice under section 148 being barred by limitation. 5. The rest of the findings given in order dated 15.07.2024 remain unaltered. 6. In the result, the MA of the revenue is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 08-05-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "