Annamma Samkutty v. ITO
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The case concerns reassessment initiated after the extended limitation period. The reported reasoning turns on whether the alleged escaped income met the statutory threshold required for reopening beyond three years.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 148A; 149
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold: The case concerns reassessment initiated after the extended limitation period. The reported reasoning turns on whether the alleged escaped income met the statutory threshold required for reopening beyond three years.
Material facts and background
In the case of the assessee, the assessee had also
purchased property along with her husband. Therefore, for AY 2016-17,
Section 149 of the Income Tax Act is reproduced here as
under : “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,—
(a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); [(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more:]”
Thus, as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act no notice u/s 148
shall be issued after a lapse of 3 years from the end of the assessment year unless income escaping assessment is more than Rs.50 lakhs and the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset has escaped assessment. It means after a lapse of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, the AO must have in possession, books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Also after a lapse of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, notice u/s 148 shall be issued only if escapement is more than Rs.50 lakhs. 8.1
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
data uploaded by the various institutions may have factual errors and therefore CBDT specifically directed the AO and the supervisory authorities to verify the data before initiating any proceedings.
Purushottam Virgincar Vs. ITO, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 352 (Bombay) has held as under : Quote, “15. The Revenue is seeking to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act on the alleged ground that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The recorded reasons in detail state that "... From the material available on record, the actual payment made by M/s. Adwalpalkar Constructions & Resorts Pvt. Ltd (TAN : BLRA14822D) to the Assessee is Rs. 3,59,50,000. The Assessee has not disclosed an amount of Rs. 64,43,000/in her return of income filed……… ... ". 18. Moreover, we find that the substantive rights of the original petitioner were governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code. The fact that
the original petitioner is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code has been duly brought before the respondents. In our opinion, mere non-mention of the same in the return of income would not give rise to a situation where the tax on the sale of property beyond the share of the original petitioner could be taxed in her hands. The respondents do not appear to have disputed that the original petitioner was indeed governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and this was already on record of the Revenue (Exhibit E/97). Moreover, the petitioner's husband had passed away way back in the year 1986and the share of her husband had devolved from the date of his demise equally on his children. This position was also known to the Revenue when their return of income was filed. 19. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find that even such reasoning is fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub Registrar's for any registration is duly transmitted to the respondents. The execution of such Sale Deed was already on record. In such a case if...
Officer had issued notice merely based on the chart visible to him on the Income Tax Portal. Therefore, the first condition to issue notice u/s 148 after a lapse of 3 years that AO must have evidence which reveal escapement of income of more than Rs.50 lakhs is not fulfilled, as the chart appearing on the Income Tax Portal without copy of the Registered Sale Deed cannot be considered as documents or evidence, evidencing escapement of income.
Operative decision and relief
the original petitioner is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code has been duly brought before the respondents. In our opinion, mere non-mention of the same in the return of income would not give rise to a situation where the tax on the sale of property beyond the share of the original petitioner could be taxed in her hands. The respondents do not appear to have disputed that the original petitioner was indeed governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and this was already on record of the Revenue (Exhibit E/97). Moreover, the petitioner's husband had passed away way back in the year 1986and the share of her husband had devolved from the date of his demise equally on his children. This position was also known to the Revenue when their return of income was filed. 19. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find that even such reasoning is fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub Registrar's for any registration is duly transmitted to the respondents. The execution of such Sale Deed was already on record. In such a case if...
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
- Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 148A, 149.
- Your matter is at a comparable reassessment stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Pune considered: In the case of the assessee, the assessee had also purchased property along with her husband.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2016-17 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Annamma Samkutty?
The case concerns reassessment initiated after the extended limitation period. The reported reasoning turns on whether the alleged escaped income met the statutory threshold required for reopening beyond three years.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
In the case of the assessee, the assessee had also purchased property along with her husband. Therefore, for AY 2016-17, Section 149 of the Income Tax Act is reproduced here as under : “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); [(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence…
What did the ITAT Pune ultimately decide?
the original petitioner is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code has been duly brought before the respondents. In our opinion, mere non-mention of the same in the return of income would not give rise to a situation where the tax on the sale of property beyond the share of the original petitioner could be taxed in her hands. The respondents do not appear to have disputed that the original petitioner was indeed governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and this was already on record of the Revenue…
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 148A, 149. The relevant statutory version for AY 2016-17 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 148A — 148A is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 149 — 149 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 148A, 149 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Reassessment beyond three years; monetary threshold. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending |
|---|---|
| Pages | 7 |
| SHA-256 | 131495571af247f3ed12905b84100cf68660ce0cc407deaa5fa26ba0cb9b48b2 |
| Local document URL | Open the packaged local document |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |
Related Finin2min guidance
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 149Section 148