TIRUPATI SHYAM ENTERPRISE,SURAT V. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 318/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tirupati Shyam Enterprises appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the reassessment and additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the validity of the reassessment notice issued on 26th July, 2022, which the assessee argued was beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal examined the applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and the relevant Supreme Court judgments to determine the correct legal framework and timelines applicable for the reassessment for the assessment year 2015-16.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786120 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rajeev Bansal & Others v. Union of India, Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Income tax officer, Jaysukh Gobalbhai Savalia v. Income-tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J.K. CHANDNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Road, Surat-395007. Vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction: Dy. CIT Circle- 1(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. PAN NO. AAGFT 3570 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Printed from counselvise.com 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in reopening assessment u/s by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 52,96,500/ account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the case may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with appropriate directions 2. At the very threshold of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Registry has pointed out a delay of seventy appeal. The learned Counsel, adverting to the affidavit placed on record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never received on the assessee’s primary e [e-mail] at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the passing of the said order only when his counsel, upon a routine verification of the appeal status on the Income Tax Department’s ITD portal, noticed that the appeal had been decided. Thereupon, Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on t, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in reopening assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 52,96,500/ account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT 5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the ase may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with directions At the very threshold of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Registry has pointed out a delay of seventy-one days in the filing appeal. The learned Counsel, adverting to the affidavit placed on record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never received on the assessee’s primary e-mail addre [e-mail], which stood duly declared in Form No. 35 at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the passing of the said order only when his counsel, upon a routine the appeal status on the Income Tax Department’s ITD portal, noticed that the appeal had been decided. Thereupon, Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 2 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on t, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the 3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of . 147 r.w.s 144B 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 52,96,500/- on account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT 5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the ase may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with At the very threshold of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Registry has one days in the filing of the present appeal. The learned Counsel, adverting to the affidavit placed on record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never mail address, namely , which stood duly declared in Form No. 35 at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the passing of the said order only when his counsel, upon a routine the appeal status on the Income Tax Department’s ITD portal, noticed that the appeal had been decided. Thereupon, Printed from counselvise.com immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any avoidable delay. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the is the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant part of the affidavit of the assessee is reproduced as under: 2) That is to state that my primary e Income Tax portal is [e-mail] which was also duly mentioned did not receive any email from Income Tax Department in regard to the CIT(A) order u/s. 250 being passed. 3) That I came to know about the order only when my Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, randomly. I, therefore consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Hence the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge of the fact of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) as the order was never ser address [e-mail]. It was served on another e-mail address of insclient 4) From the above facts, it is clear that there is no delay in filing the appeal as I was required to receive the appellate order on the mentione of mandate of Form it should be condoned as the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and I was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 5) That therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pray to this Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: a. To condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and upto th b. Also, that the case is a meritorious one and requires consideration to grant such other and further relief as deemed fit by Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tirupati Shyam Enterprises immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any We have heard rival submission of the parties on the is the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant part of the affidavit of the assessee is reproduced as under: 2) That is to state that my primary e-mail ID on the Income Tax portal is [e-mail] which was also duly mentioned while filing Form No. 35. Further, I did not receive any email from Income Tax Department in regard to the CIT(A) order u/s. 250 being passed. 3) That I came to know about the order only when my Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, omly. I, therefore consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Hence the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge of the fact of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) as the order was never served on e-mail address [e-mail]. It was served on mail address of insclient- [e-mail]. 4) From the above facts, it is clear that there is no delay in filing the appeal as I was required to receive the appellate order on the mentioned e-mail address in terms of mandate of Form- 35. In case, the delay is construed, it should be condoned as the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and I was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pray to this Honorable Income Tax Appellate a. To condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and upto the date of filing the appeal; b. Also, that the case is a meritorious one and requires consideration to grant such other and further relief as deemed fit by Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 3 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant part of the affidavit of the assessee is reproduced as under: mail ID on the Income Tax portal is [e-mail] which was while filing Form No. 35. Further, I did not receive any email from Income Tax Department in 3) That I came to know about the order only when my Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, omly. I, therefore consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Hence the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge of the fact of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. mail address [e-mail]. It was served on 4) From the above facts, it is clear that there is no delay in filing the appeal as I was required to receive the mail address in terms 35. In case, the delay is construed, it should be condoned as the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and I was prevented by sufficient therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pray to this Honorable Income Tax Appellate a. To condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 and to extend the time for filing e date of filing the appeal; b. Also, that the case is a meritorious one and requires consideration to grant such other and further relief as Tribunal Printed from counselvise.com 3.1 The power of this Tribunal to condone delay is well in law and may be exercised where the assessee demonstrates the existence of a sufficient cause The expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice rather th on mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its celebrated pronouncement in Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitt each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for the other cause cannot claim ascendancy. 3.2 In the present case, we find the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by the facts on record. The delay arose not out of negligence or inaction, but from circumstances beyond the assessee’s control receipt of the order on the registered e declared in Form No. 35. Once knowledge of the order was gained, prompt action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. 3.3 Accordingly, invoking our discretion under the law and guided by the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay of seventy Tirupati Shyam Enterprises The power of this Tribunal to condone delay is well in law and may be exercised where the assessee demonstrates the sufficient cause preventing timely filing of the appeal. The expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice rather th on mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its celebrated pronouncement in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitt each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for the other cause cannot claim ascendancy. In the present case, we find the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by the facts on record. The delay arose not out of negligence or inaction, but from circumstances beyond the assessee’s control — namely, the non receipt of the order on the registered e-mail address statutorily declared in Form No. 35. Once knowledge of the order was gained, action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, invoking our discretion under the law and guided by the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we it just and proper to condone the delay of seventy Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 4 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 The power of this Tribunal to condone delay is well-recognised in law and may be exercised where the assessee demonstrates the preventing timely filing of the appeal. The expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for In the present case, we find the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by the facts on record. The delay arose not out of negligence or inaction, but from namely, the non- mail address statutorily declared in Form No. 35. Once knowledge of the order was gained, action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, invoking our discretion under the law and guided by the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we it just and proper to condone the delay of seventy-one days in Printed from counselvise.com filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not make any compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, both the authorities have passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.2 Before us, the Ld. couns additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings, which being purely legal in nature and going to root of the matter, hence same is admitted for adjudication. 5. The learned Counsel for the asses invited our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] and contended that, for the Assessment Year 2015 under the erstwhile provisions of Section 148 of the Income 1961, had not expired as on 31st March, 2021. It was submitted that sufficient time was still available to the Department to initiate reassessment proceedings under therefore, the relaxation provisions contained in the Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”) were not attracted to the said assessment year. Tirupati Shyam Enterprises filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for adjudication on merits. On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not make any compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, both the authorities have passed the parte qua the assessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment , which being purely legal in nature and going to root of the matter, hence same is admitted for adjudication. The learned Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, invited our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal & Others v. Union of India [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] and contended that, for the Assessment Year 2015–16, the limitation for issuance of notice under the erstwhile provisions of Section 148 of the Income 1961, had not expired as on 31st March, 2021. It was submitted that sufficient time was still available to the Department to initiate reassessment proceedings under the unamended regime and, therefore, the relaxation provisions contained in the Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, (“TOLA”) were not attracted to the said assessment year. Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 5 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not make any compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, both the authorities have passed the el for the assessee has filed an additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment , which being purely legal in nature and going to root of the matter, hence same is admitted for adjudication. see, at the very outset, invited our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the Rajeev Bansal & Others v. Union of India [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] and contended that, for the for issuance of notice under the erstwhile provisions of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not expired as on 31st March, 2021. It was submitted that sufficient time was still available to the Department to initiate the unamended regime and, therefore, the relaxation provisions contained in the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, (“TOLA”) were not attracted to the said assessment year. Printed from counselvise.com 5.1 The learned Counsel further poi notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the new law, the outer limit for initiation of reassessment proceedings extended only up to 31st Mar the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice dated 26th July, 2022 stood issued clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was thus void ab initio. Reliance was further placed on the ju in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Income taxmann.com 25 (Guj.)], wherein a similar view was taken. 5.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel f the notices issued u/s 14 on record. 5.3 We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration upon the rival submissions and have carefully examined the material placed on record. The controversy in question is no longer Hon’ble Supreme Court in down, in clear and categorical terms, that the benefit of extended limitation under TOLA cannot be availed in respect of assessment years where, as on 31st March, 2021, the time for issuing notice under the erstwhile Section 148 had not expired. It was observed that, upon the coming into force of the amended scheme with effect Tirupati Shyam Enterprises The learned Counsel further pointed out that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the new law, the outer limit for initiation of reassessment proceedings extended only up to 31st March, 2022, i.e., within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice dated 26th July, 2022 stood issued clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was thus void ab initio. Reliance was further placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer taxmann.com 25 (Guj.)], wherein a similar view was taken. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed the notices issued u/s 148A(d) and 148 of the Act which are placed We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration upon the rival submissions and have carefully examined the material placed on record. The controversy in question is no longer res integra Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal & Others down, in clear and categorical terms, that the benefit of extended limitation under TOLA cannot be availed in respect of assessment years where, as on 31st March, 2021, the time for issuing notice der the erstwhile Section 148 had not expired. It was observed that, upon the coming into force of the amended scheme with effect Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 6 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 nted out that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the new law, the outer limit for initiation of reassessment proceedings ch, 2022, i.e., within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice dated 26th July, 2022 stood issued clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was thus void ab initio. Reliance was dgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court tax Officer [(2024) 176 taxmann.com 25 (Guj.)], wherein a similar view was taken. or the assessee also filed a copy of and 148 of the Act which are placed We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration upon the rival submissions and have carefully examined the material placed on res integra. The (supra) has laid down, in clear and categorical terms, that the benefit of extended limitation under TOLA cannot be availed in respect of assessment years where, as on 31st March, 2021, the time for issuing notice der the erstwhile Section 148 had not expired. It was observed that, upon the coming into force of the amended scheme with effect Printed from counselvise.com from 1st April, 2021, the power to reopen stood governed strictly by the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 o 5.4 In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is manifest that for Assessment Year 2015 limitation under the old law subsisted up to 31st March, 2021. Hence, the relaxation under TOLA was inapplicable. The cas assessee, therefore, fell within the ambit of the amended law, wherein the maximum permissible period for issuance of notice was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., up to 31st March, 2022. The notice under Section 148, ha issued on 26th July, 2022, is patently barred by limitation and without authority of law. 5.5 We also derive fortification for this view from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Income-tax Officer (ITA No. 269/SRT/2025, A.Y. 2015 in an identical factual matrix, it was held that once the limitation under the unamended provision had not expired as on 31st March, 2021, TOLA could not be pressed into service to extend such limitation, and any notice issued beyond 31st March, 2022 would be non est in law. 5.6 Respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal & Others of the jurisdictional High Court cited hereinabove, we hol Tirupati Shyam Enterprises from 1st April, 2021, the power to reopen stood governed strictly by the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 o In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is manifest that for Assessment Year 2015 limitation under the old law subsisted up to 31st March, 2021. Hence, the relaxation under TOLA was inapplicable. The cas assessee, therefore, fell within the ambit of the amended law, wherein the maximum permissible period for issuance of notice was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., up to 31st March, 2022. The notice under Section 148, ha issued on 26th July, 2022, is patently barred by limitation and without authority of law. We also derive fortification for this view from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Jaysukh Gobalbhai Savalia v. (ITA No. 269/SRT/2025, A.Y. 2015 in an identical factual matrix, it was held that once the limitation under the unamended provision had not expired as on 31st March, 2021, TOLA could not be pressed into service to extend such any notice issued beyond 31st March, 2022 would Respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Rajeev Bansal & Others (supra) and the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court cited hereinabove, we hol Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 7 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 from 1st April, 2021, the power to reopen stood governed strictly by the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Act. In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is manifest that for Assessment Year 2015–16, the limitation under the old law subsisted up to 31st March, 2021. Hence, the relaxation under TOLA was inapplicable. The case of the assessee, therefore, fell within the ambit of the amended law, wherein the maximum permissible period for issuance of notice was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., up to 31st March, 2022. The notice under Section 148, having been issued on 26th July, 2022, is patently barred by limitation and We also derive fortification for this view from the judgment of Jaysukh Gobalbhai Savalia v. (ITA No. 269/SRT/2025, A.Y. 2015–16), wherein, in an identical factual matrix, it was held that once the limitation under the unamended provision had not expired as on 31st March, 2021, TOLA could not be pressed into service to extend such any notice issued beyond 31st March, 2022 would Respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble (supra) and the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court cited hereinabove, we hold that the Printed from counselvise.com impugned reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated 26th July, 2022 are barred by limitation and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 6. In view of our finding on the additional ground, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the other grounds raised on merits stand rendered purely academic and call for no adjudication. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced by way display o on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Tirupati Shyam Enterprises impugned reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated 26th July, 2022 are barred by limitation and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. In view of our finding on the additional ground, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the other grounds raised on merits stand rendered purely academic and call for no In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board /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 Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 8 ITA No. 318/SRT/2025 impugned reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated 26th July, 2022 are barred by limitation and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. In view of our finding on the additional ground, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the other grounds raised on merits stand rendered purely academic and call for no In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. f result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "