SOFIA TWIST AND TEXT PVT LTD,SURAT V. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 739/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd, the appellant, contesting the reassessment proceedings initiated by the DCIT, Circle \\u2013 2(1)(1), Surat, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The primary contention was regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the appellant argued was barred by limitation and lacked the necessary sanction under Section 151. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which the appellant challenged. The Tribunal admitted the legal ground concerning the jurisdictional foundation of the reassessment proceedings and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the limitation issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782877 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal & Others [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)], Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022 SCC OnLine SC 543]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K KABRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 739/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd, 3003, Rathi Palace, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 Vs. DCIT, Circle – 2(1)(1) Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majurgate, Surat - 395002 PAN NO. AADCS4384F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Suresh K Kabra, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-2018, raising following grounds: 1. The Ld Assessing Officer has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in issuing notice u/s.148 without proper sanction as per section 151. 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.3,69,220/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act. Printed from counselvise.com 2.1 The notice u/s.148 may be quashed. 2.2 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) 2.3 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.4 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 3. appellant craves leave to add, a ce any or all of the above grounds. 2. At the threshold, the an additional ground assailing the very jurisdictional foundation of the reassessment proceedings, contending that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income was barred by limitation and that the mandatory sanction envisaged under Section 151 of the Act had not been obtained in the manner contemplated by law. 2.1 The said ground, being purely legal in character and going to the root of the matter, was admitted for adjudication, in consonance with the settled princip upon the jurisdiction of the authority may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not necessitate fresh investigation of facts. 3. In support of his contention, the assessee placed reli Hon’ble Supreme Court Others [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)] issued under Section 148 of the Act was manifestly beyond the limitation period as reckoned after ITA No. Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. The notice u/s.148 may be quashed. The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)-NFAC deleted. may be kindly ersonal hearing may be granted. Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be appellant craves leave to add, a ce any or all of the above At the threshold, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee an additional ground assailing the very jurisdictional foundation of the reassessment proceedings, contending that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was barred by limitation and that the mandatory sanction envisaged under Section 151 of the Act had not been obtained in the manner contemplated by law. The said ground, being purely legal in character and going to the root of the matter, was admitted for adjudication, in consonance with the settled principle that a legal plea touching upon the jurisdiction of the authority may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not necessitate fresh investigation of facts. In support of his contention, the Ld. Counsel for the placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal & [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)] and submitted that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was manifestly beyond the limitation period as reckoned after giving effect to the directions ITA No. 739/SRT/2025 2 Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and NFAC deleted. may be kindly Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be appellant craves leave to add, a ce any or all of the above Ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed an additional ground assailing the very jurisdictional foundation of the reassessment proceedings, contending that the notice tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was barred by limitation and that the mandatory sanction envisaged under Section 151 of the Act had not been obtained in The said ground, being purely legal in character and going to the root of the matter, was admitted for adjudication, in le that a legal plea touching upon the jurisdiction of the authority may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not necessitate fresh Ld. Counsel for the ance upon the recent judgment of the Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal & and submitted that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was manifestly beyond the giving effect to the directions Printed from counselvise.com of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agarwal [2022 SCC OnLine SC 543]. law laid down in Ashish Agarwal survival period within which the Revenue could validly issue fresh notices, and any action beyond such statutory grace period would be non est in law. 3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee a tabulated chronolo concerning the issuance of notice and the assessee’s response thereto, which is reproduced as under: ITA No. Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish [2022 SCC OnLine SC 543]. It was contended that the Ashish Agarwal (supra) carved out a limited survival period within which the Revenue could validly issue fresh notices, and any action beyond such statutory grace period would be non est in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed on record a tabulated chronology delineating the sequence of events concerning the issuance of notice and the assessee’s response which is reproduced as under: ITA No. 739/SRT/2025 3 Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. Union of India v. Ashish It was contended that the carved out a limited survival period within which the Revenue could validly issue fresh notices, and any action beyond such statutory grace period has also placed on record gy delineating the sequence of events concerning the issuance of notice and the assessee’s response Printed from counselvise.com 3.2 Referring to the said chronology, it was submitted that the assessee had duly filed his response under Section 26.05.2022, and upon applying the two permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), the last permissible date for issuance of notice under Section 148 would be the impugned notice was issued on to the assessee, fell clearly beyond the statutory limit, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding void jurisdiction. 3.3 Per contra, the contended that the factual matrix required verification from the assessment records. It was urged that the computation of limitation depended upon the date of the by the assessee, since the tw reckoned from that date and not from the first or any intermediate response. The absence of clarity as to whether the response dated 26.05.2022 was indeed the final reply under Section 148 warranted verification from the record of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and have perused with care the material available on record. The controversy, though narrow in compass, the determination of a jurisdictional question impugned notice under Section 148 was issued within the period of limitation as preserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITA No. Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. Referring to the said chronology, it was submitted that the assessee had duly filed his response under Section , and upon applying the two-week survival period permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the last permissible date for issuance of notice under Section 148 would be 12.06.2022. However, in the present case, the impugned notice was issued on 29.06.2022, which, according to the assessee, fell clearly beyond the statutory limit, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding void ab initio he Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the factual matrix required verification from the assessment records. It was urged that the computation of limitation depended upon the date of the last response by the assessee, since the two-week survival period was to be reckoned from that date and not from the first or any intermediate response. The Ld. DR thus submitted that, in the absence of clarity as to whether the response dated 26.05.2022 was indeed the final reply under Section 148A(b), the matter warranted verification from the record of the Assessing Officer. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and have perused with care the material available on record. The controversy, though narrow in compass, the determination of a jurisdictional question — impugned notice under Section 148 was issued within the period of limitation as preserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITA No. 739/SRT/2025 4 Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. Referring to the said chronology, it was submitted that the assessee had duly filed his response under Section 148A(b) on week survival period Ashish Agarwal (supra), the last permissible date for issuance of notice under . However, in the present case, , which, according to the assessee, fell clearly beyond the statutory limit, rendering and without Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the factual matrix required verification from the assessment records. It was urged that the computation of last response submitted week survival period was to be reckoned from that date and not from the first or any thus submitted that, in the absence of clarity as to whether the response dated 26.05.2022 A(b), the matter warranted verification from the record of the Assessing Officer. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and have perused with care the material available on record. The controversy, though narrow in compass, involves whether the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued within the period of limitation as preserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Printed from counselvise.com Ashish Agarwal (supra) and as further elucidated in Bansal (supra). 4.1 The ratio emerging from notices issued during the interregnum period between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 treated as notices under Section 148A(b), and the Revenue would be entitled to issue fresh notices under the amended provision within a period of two weeks from the date of response submitted by the assessee. The subseq (supra) clarified and reaffirmed the limitation contours, emphasizing that such extended survival of time was to be construed strictly and could not be enlarged or extended by administrative interpretation. 4.2 In the present last response was filed on 26.05.2022 and that, accordingly, the extended limitation expired on 12.06.2022, while the Department asserts that further responses may have been filed thereafter. The record before us, this factual aspect. Since the entire edifice of limitation hinges on the ascertainment of the last date of the assessee’s response, it is imperative that this fact be duly verified from the assessment file. 4.3 In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the binding dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ashish Agarwal (supra), we consider it just and proper to remit this additional ground to the file of the ITA No. Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. (supra) and as further elucidated in The ratio emerging from Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the notices issued during the interregnum period between 30.06.2021 under the erstwhile regime shall be treated as notices under Section 148A(b), and the Revenue would be entitled to issue fresh notices under the amended provision within a period of two weeks from the date of response submitted by the assessee. The subsequent decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) clarified and reaffirmed the limitation contours, emphasizing that such extended survival of time was to be construed strictly and could not be enlarged or extended by administrative interpretation. case, the assessee has contended that his last response was filed on 26.05.2022 and that, accordingly, the extended limitation expired on 12.06.2022, while the Department asserts that further responses may have been filed thereafter. The record before us, however, does not conclusively establish this factual aspect. Since the entire edifice of limitation hinges on the ascertainment of the last date of the assessee’s response, it is imperative that this fact be duly verified from the assessment file. view of the foregoing, and having regard to the binding Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we consider it just and proper to remit this additional ground to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No. 739/SRT/2025 5 Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. (supra) and as further elucidated in Rajeev (supra) is that the notices issued during the interregnum period between under the erstwhile regime shall be treated as notices under Section 148A(b), and the Revenue would be entitled to issue fresh notices under the amended provision within a period of two weeks from the date of response submitted Rajeev Bansal (supra) clarified and reaffirmed the limitation contours, emphasizing that such extended survival of time was to be construed strictly and could not be enlarged or extended by case, the assessee has contended that his last response was filed on 26.05.2022 and that, accordingly, the extended limitation expired on 12.06.2022, while the Department asserts that further responses may have been filed thereafter. however, does not conclusively establish this factual aspect. Since the entire edifice of limitation hinges on the ascertainment of the last date of the assessee’s response, it is imperative that this fact be duly verified from the assessment file. view of the foregoing, and having regard to the binding Rajeev Bansal (supra) and (supra), we consider it just and proper to remit Ld. CIT(A) for limited Printed from counselvise.com verification. The Ld. CIT(A) records the precise date of the assessee’s last response under Section 148A(b) and thereafter adjudicate the question of limitation in accordance with law. 4.4 It is made clear that the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order upon such verification. 4.5 In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we refrain from adjudicating upon the other grounds raised on the merits of the addition, which shall remain open. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) shall ascertain from the assessment records the precise date of the assessee’s last response under Section 148A(b) and thereafter adjudicate the question of limitation in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order upon such verification. In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the , we refrain from adjudicating upon the other grounds e merits of the addition, which shall remain open. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board on /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat ITA No. 739/SRT/2025 6 Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd. shall ascertain from the assessment records the precise date of the assessee’s last response under Section 148A(b) and thereafter adjudicate the question of shall afford due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the , we refrain from adjudicating upon the other grounds e merits of the addition, which shall remain open. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for f result on notice board on Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "