The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- A retired school teacher faced income tax reassessment proceedings after high cash deposits were flagged in his bank accounts.
- The Income Tax Department issued a reassessment notice for the 2015-16 assessment year in April 2022.
- The ITAT Bangalore ruled the notice invalid because it was issued 26 days after the March 31 deadline.
- This decision highlights the importance of strict adherence to statutory limitation periods in tax proceedings.
What to watch next
- Impact of the Rajeev Bansal case on similar pending tax reassessment disputes
Who said what1
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Suresh Surana
Chartered Accountant
1 quote · 1 outlet
“the ITAT Bangalore decided the matter on the question of jurisdiction arising from the limitation period.”
In the article
…the limitation period had ended. The ITAT Bangalore took note of this delay and held that the notice had been issued after the prescribed period had already expired. Chartered Accountant Suresh Surana told ET that the ITAT Bangalore decided the matter on the question of jurisdiction arising from the limitation period. Once the tribunal found that the Section 148 notice had been issued beyond the prescribed period and was therefore invalid, the reassessment proceedings based on that notice could not continue. The tribunal considered…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Mysore · Central Board of Direct Taxes · Income Tax Department · ITAT Bangalore · Karnataka High Court · Supreme Court · Suresh Surana
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.