DCIT-19(1), MUMBAI V. ANISH PIYUSH KOTHARI, MUMBAI

ITA 3927/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 1997-98, and a Cross Objection by the assessee, Anish Piyush Kothari. The primary legal issue was the validity of the re-assessment proceedings initiated under sections 148 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined whether the notice issued under section 148 was within the statutory time limit as prescribed under section 149. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was issued beyond the permissible period, rendering the re-assessment proceedings invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773447 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: The Jute Corporation India Ltd. Vs. CIT, The NTPC Vs. CIT, Brahm Datt v. ACIT, DCIT v. Deval Thakkar
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITHA V. NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI AW
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3927/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 1997-98 DCIT – 19(1) Room No. 506, 5th Floor, Pirmal Chamber Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 Vs Anish Piyush Kothari 102, 10th Floor, EI-CID, 13-A, Ridge Road, Mumbai – 400 006 PAN – AADPK4951D (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 166/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025) Assessment Year: 1997-98 Anish Piyush Kothari 102, 10th Floor, EI- CID, 13-A, Ridge Road, Mumbai – 400 006 PAN – AADPK4951D Vs DCIT – 19(1) Room No. 506, 5th Floor, Pirmal Chamber Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Shri Ashwin Kashinath Revenue by Ms. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 30.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025 CO No. 166/Mum/2025 Anish Piyush Kothari, Mumbai. Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 1997-98. CO. No. 166/Mum/2025, AY: 1997-98 2. At the outset assessee has raised the additional ground in its Cross Objection, which is reproduced herein below: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in filing to adjudicate on the ground that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings in the present case is without fulfilling the jurisdictional conditions under section 148 to 151 of the Act rendering the said proceedings to be illegal and bad in law. 3. After having heard the counsels of both the parties on the additional ground raised by the assessee, I found that the same is legal in nature and it goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Jute Corporation India Ltd., Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 and The NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and also considering the facts of the present case, I allow the application for raising the additional ground and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits. 4. On the additional ground of appeal, I have heard the counsels of both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before me and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records I noticed that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 13.03.2014 was issued beyond the period of limitation as laid down u/s 149 of the Act. In this regard, it was submitted that as per Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025 CO No. 166/Mum/2025 Anish Piyush Kothari, Mumbai. the provisions of Section 149, as applicable for AY 1997- 98, the time limit for issuance of notice was ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus the period of limitation for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act was as under: Particulars Date End of AY 1997-98 31.03.1998 Expiry of limitation period 31.03.2008 Date of Notice in the present case u/s 148 of the Act 13.03.2014 5. The provisions of Section 149 of the Act were further amended vide Finance Act 2012. w.e.f. 1st July 2012, wherein the maximum time limit was extended to 16 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 6. Therefore in my view, the extended period of limitation under the amended provisions would be applicable to those assessments where the time limit to issue notice under section 148 had not expired as on the date of the amended provisions i.e. 1st July, 2012. As the same is clarified in Explanation to Section 149 of the Act. 7. In this way as per the facts of the present case, the period of limitation to issue notice u/s 148 r.w.s 149 of the Act had already expired on 31st March 2008, which is several years prior to the date from which the amendment made to section 149 by Finance Act, 2012 was effective. Thus, the re-opening of the proceedings for AY 1997-98 is Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025 CO No. 166/Mum/2025 Anish Piyush Kothari, Mumbai. barred by limitation and the consequential order passed u/s. 147 of the Act are also void ab-initio. 8. In this regard reliance is being placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Datt v. ACIT [100 taxmann.com 324] wherein on identical facts, the Court held that ‘assessment for AY 1998-99 which was s re-opened on 24.03.2015 was held to be invalid’. The SLP filed by the Department in the said case was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 5th July 2019 [SLP No. 016287/2019]. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Deval Thakkar [ITA No. 968 and 967/MUM/2020] wherein on similar facts, it was held that ‘the re-opening of the assessment is invalid since the time limit for issuing notice under section 149 of the Act had expired and thus, the assessment order was held to be invalid and bad in law’. 9. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the Coordinate Bench of ITAT and while applying the principles of Stare Decisis I hold that the reopening of the assessment in the present case is invalid as the time limit for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act had expired as a consequence thereof the assessment order passed by the revenue authorities is Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025 CO No. 166/Mum/2025 Anish Piyush Kothari, Mumbai. invalid and bad in law, therefore additional ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025, AY: 1997-98 10. In view of our above finding with regard to additional ground raised by the assessee in CO with respect to validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the bench has been already allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and held the order of assessment as invalid therefore in view of the said finding, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 11. In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 22/09/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 3927/Mum/2025 CO No. 166/Mum/2025 Anish Piyush Kothari, Mumbai. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "