KALPESHKUMAR JERAMBHAI SANGANI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 348/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kalpeshkumar Jerambhai Sangani, the appellant, contesting the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the validity of the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the appellant argued was time-barred and violated provisions related to reassessment approvals. The Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court judgment, found in favor of the appellant, leading to the allowance of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792907 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C. DHARANI NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH; GULAB THAKOR; ARS
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 348/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kalpeshkumar Jerambhai Sangani, Plot No. 3, Sr. No. 69, Kathwada, Khodiyarnagar Society, GIDC, Bhagwati Nagar, Nava Nikol, Ahmedabad-382430 [PAN :EUCPS 8256 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Gulab Thakor, ARs Respondent by: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr DR Date of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22 .09.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.01.2025 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by AO on 30.07.2022 is time barred as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) Judgement dated 3rd October, 2024 and thus deserves to be quashed. 3. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that notice issued u/s 148 is in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 348/Ahd/2025 Kalpeshkumar Jerambhai Sangani Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– violation of provision of Section 151 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) Judgement dated 3rd October, 2024 as approval taken by AO u/s 151 of the Act from Principal commissioner-1, Ahmedabad is incorrect as three years have elapsed from relevant assessment year. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that Notice issued u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing officer is in violation of Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. …….” 3. At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the appeal stands covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and is barred by limitation. On going through the facts on record, no contrary facts could be found. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed on jurisdictional grounds. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 22.09.2025 **btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "