Subramanian Prabhakaran vs. ITO Ward 15(1) Chennai [TU-DT-10-ITAT-2026]
Background of the Case
The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 on the ground that the notice issued on 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation under the amended provisions of Section 149. The reassessment proceedings were initiated after introduction of the new reassessment regime by the Finance Act, 2021. The Revenue contended that while computing limitation, the period allowed to the assessee for responding to notice issued under Section 148A(b) should be excluded in terms of the proviso to Section 149(1), thereby extending the limitation period. The core issue before the ITAT Chennai was whether the reassessment notice dated 01.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 survived the limitation prescribed under the old and new reassessment regime.
Arguments by the Appellant (Assessee)
The assessee argued that under the old reassessment regime, the maximum period available for issuance of notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022, being six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It was submitted that the first proviso to Section 149(1), inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, specifically protects completed and time-barred assessments from being reopened under the extended ten-year limitation introduced under the new regime. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal and various High Court decisions to contend that reassessment notices issued after expiry of the old limitation period are invalid. The assessee further argued that exclusion provisions relating to proceedings under Section 148A cannot revive a notice which itself fails the primary limitation test under the first proviso to Section 149(1).
Respondent’s Response (Revenue)
The Revenue argued that while computing limitation under Section 149, the period granted to the assessee for responding to notice under Section 148A(b), i.e., from 21.03.2022 to 28.03.2022, should be excluded in view of the proviso to Section 149(1). It was further contended that where the remaining limitation period after such exclusion is less than seven days, the Assessing Officer becomes entitled to an extended period of seven days for issuance of notice. Accordingly, the Department submitted that the Assessing Officer had time till 06.04.2022 to issue notice under Section 148 and therefore the notice dated 01.04.2022 was within the prescribed limitation period. The Revenue accordingly defended the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee.
Court Findings and Decision
The ITAT Chennai held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 01.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation and therefore invalid in law. The Tribunal observed that as per the first proviso to Section 149(1), reassessment notices for years prior to AY 2021-22 cannot be issued if such notices had already become time barred under the old six-year limitation regime. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal, the Tribunal held that the legislative intent behind the proviso was to prevent retrospective extension of limitation under the amended reassessment provisions. The Tribunal further rejected the Department’s contention regarding exclusion of time under Section 148A proceedings, holding that such exclusion provisions apply only when the notice first survives the limitation test under Section 149(1).
Since the limitation for AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022, the notice dated 01.04.2022 was held to be invalid. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were quashed and the additions made therein were deleted.
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”