MAHEBOOB ABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 876/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Maheboob Abbas Shaikh, the appellant, contesting the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat, the respondent. The notice was issued for the Assessment Year 2014-15 but was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal examined the timeline of the notice issuance and the relevant legal provisions, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was issued beyond the permissible period, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838730 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 148; 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 876/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Maheboob Abbas Shaikh, Bhada Muslim Faliya, Kamrej, Surat-394180 [PAN : EAAPS 6740 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not adjudicating the legal ground challenging the issue of Notice u/s 148. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.54,16,688/- u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 876/SRT/2025 Maheboob Abbas Shaikh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.30,33,233/- on a/c of Capital Gain.” 3. The details relating to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are summarized as under:- AY : 2014-15 Sr. Particulars Date 1. Date of issue of notice u/s 148 (Old Provisions) 22.06.2021 2. Date of providing the underlying information u/s 148A(b) 23.05.2022 3. Time available for response being two weeks from the date of providing the information i.e. from 23.05.2022 07.06.2022 (as per decision in Rajeev Bansal [SC]) 4. Survival period left 08 days (22.06.2021 to 30.06.2021) 5. Limitation date for issue of notice u/s 148 15.06.2022 (07.06.2022 + 8 days, as per decision in Rajeev Bansal [SC]) 6. Actual date of issue of notice u/s 148 (new provisions) by the Assessing Officer 23.07.2022 4. From the above facts, it is evident that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.07.2022, which is beyond the limitation period prescribed under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the notice issued under section 148 is time-barred and invalid. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) dated 03.10.2024, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 is time-barred and, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 876/SRT/2025 Maheboob Abbas Shaikh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– therefore, invalid in the eyes of law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of such invalid notice are void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated ……./02/2026 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 , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , /DR,ITAT, Surat, 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Surat 1. Date of dictation …..…05.02.2026….….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member … …05.02.2026………… 3. Other Member………10.02.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …. ….11.02.2026…………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement ..........17.02.2026… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……...17.02.2026…..…………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ……..17.02.2026.….…. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "