Hemalatha Chervu v. ITO: ITAT Hyderabad Quashes Time-Barred Section 148 Notice

This case study examines an ITAT Hyderabad ruling on whether a reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 fell outside the statutory limitation window, an issue that recurs frequently in reopening disputes following the 2021 amendments to the reassessment framework and is central to how Section 147/148 proceedings are tested at the threshold stage.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Hemalatha Chervu, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 15(1), Hyderabad
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
• Date: 26 February 2026
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 148, 147
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2015-16. The assessment was reopened under section 147, and a notice under section 148 dated 06/04/2022 was issued and served on her. She did not file a return in response to the notice, and a subsequent notice seeking details and a questionnaire went unanswered as well.

In the absence of any response, the Assessing Officer obtained her bank account statement from the bank and found cash deposits of Rs.59,85,508 along with interest income of Rs.36,310. Since no explanation was furnished, the AO completed the assessment treating the cash deposits as unexplained money and determined total income accordingly. On first appeal, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any explanation, and the appellate authority upheld the addition ex parte for non-prosecution.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel raised a legal ground that had not been pressed on the merits before the lower appellate authority: that the section 148 notice dated 06/04/2022 was issued beyond the limitation period applicable for AY 2015-16, rendering the entire reassessment invalid.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the notice under section 148 dated 06/04/2022, reopening AY 2015-16, was issued within the limitation period applicable to that assessment year.
• Whether the Revenue's position — that a higher escapement threshold entitled the Assessing Officer to a longer reopening window — could save the notice from being time-barred.
• Whether the assessment order passed under section 147 could survive once the initiating notice under section 148 was found to be barred by limitation.

---

What the court held

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 dated 06/04/2022 was barred by limitation and that the consequent assessment order passed under section 147 was bad in law and liable to be quashed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal reasoned that for AY 2015-16, under the limitation regime that applied before the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, the Assessing Officer could have reopened the assessment only up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year — that is, on or before 31/03/2022. Since the notice was issued on 06/04/2022, it fell outside that window. Applying the settled principle that a notice which could not have been validly issued under the pre-amendment limitation regime cannot be revived by the amended provisions for years that had already gone time-barred as of 01/04/2021, the Tribunal found the notice invalid regardless of the Revenue's contention about the quantum of income alleged to have escaped assessment.

The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision in Peda Subbarao Unnam vs. Income Tax Officer, which in turn had followed the jurisdictional Telangana High Court's ruling in Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT, both of which quashed section 148 notices on materially identical limitation grounds. The Revenue's reliance on Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (SC) — cited for the proposition that only prima facie material, not proof of escapement, is required at the reopening stage — did not address the separate and dispositive question of whether the notice was issued within time, and the Tribunal quashed the assessment on the limitation ground alone.

---

Strategy observations

1. The assessee's counsel raised the limitation objection as a legal ground before the Tribunal, notwithstanding that no explanation had been furnished before either the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority — the ground succeeded independently of the merits of the underlying addition.
2. The limitation argument was supported by pointing the Tribunal to a coordinate bench ruling on materially identical facts (Peda Subbarao Unnam), which itself applied a binding jurisdictional High Court precedent (Cyberabad Citizens Health Services) — this gave the Tribunal a directly applicable template rather than requiring it to construe the limitation proviso afresh.
3. Because the notice itself was found invalid, the underlying addition of unexplained money was never tested on merits — the Tribunal's quashing of the assessment order made that question academic.
4. The Revenue's reliance on Supreme Court authority regarding the threshold for initiating reassessment (Raymond Woollen Mills) did not engage the limitation issue and was accordingly of no assistance once the notice was found time-barred.
5. Researchers reviewing similar disputes should note that the outcome turned entirely on the date of issuance of the section 148 notice measured against the AY-specific limitation window, independent of the size of the addition ultimately made.

---

Why this case matters

The ruling is part of a cluster of Hyderabad ITAT decisions — including the coordinate bench ruling in Peda Subbarao Unnam applying the Telangana High Court's decision in Cyberabad Citizens Health Services — that treat the limitation proviso governing reopening as a threshold bar that survives independently of how large the alleged escapement of income is. Where a notice could not have been validly issued under the regime that applied before the Finance Act, 2021 amendments, the Tribunal's reasoning here indicates that the amended provisions do not operate to revive the Revenue's power to reopen for years that had already gone time-barred.

For research purposes, the case is a useful illustration of how a purely jurisdictional/limitation objection under sections 147 and 148 can result in an assessment being quashed in its entirety, even where the assessee did not contest the factual basis of the addition at any stage of the proceedings below.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140787076/