A section 154 order was passed on me in 2022 rectifying a 2015 assessment, with no notice and no DIN. What can I do about it four years later?
The Calcutta High Court set the order aside. An order passed beyond the four years in s.154(7) suffers from a jurisdictional error, so it can be challenged in writ even after long delay, and the Court also recorded the Department's failure to comply with s.154(3) by not showing that any prior notice was served, and the absence of a Document Identification Number required by the CBDT circular dated 14 August 2019.
Decided by the High Court (Kausik Chanda J) on 2026-03-31, reported as WPA 54 of 2026 (Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side). It bears on section 154, section 154(3), section 154(7), section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
This is the whole checklist for attacking a stale rectification order in one short recent judgment: limitation under s.154(7) computed from the end of the financial year of the order sought to be amended, prior notice under s.154(3) where the amendment increases liability, and the DIN circular. Because the limitation defect is jurisdictional and not a mere irregularity, delay in approaching the writ court did not bar relief — here the delay of about four years was explained by the death of the petitioner's earlier advocate. All consequential recovery proceedings went with the order.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner challenged an order dated 25 March 2022 passed under s.154 read with s.143(3). The order sought to rectify an assessment order dated 25 February 2015 passed under s.143(3). Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that no notice had been issued before the order as required by s.154(3), that the order was barred by limitation under s.154(7), and that the document bore no Document Identification Number as mandated by the CBDT circular dated 14 August 2019. Counsel for the Revenue did not meet those points on the merits but submitted that the writ petition had been filed about four years after the impugned order and should not be entertained on the ground of delay. The petitioner explained in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the delay was caused by the death of his earlier advocate.
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 25 March 2022 was set aside and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the Department were also set aside. Because the order sought to be rectified was dated 25 February 2015, the last date for passing a rectification order was 31 March 2019, so the order passed on 25 March 2022 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Having been passed beyond limitation it suffered from a jurisdictional error, and the Revenue's objection based on delay in approaching the Court was satisfactorily explained. The Court also found that the Department had failed to comply with s.154(3) by not disclosing that any prior notice was served, and that there was substance in the contention that the document contained no Document Identification Number.
The Court set out s.154(7) verbatim and applied it arithmetically: the order sought to be amended was the s.143(3) order of 25 February 2015, so the four years from the end of that financial year expired on 31 March 2019 and the order of 25 March 2022 was out of time. It then held that an order passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation suffers from a jurisdictional error, which is what allowed the Court to entertain the petition notwithstanding the lapse of about four years, the delay having been explained by the death of the petitioner's earlier advocate. The failures under s.154(3) and under the DIN circular were recorded as further infirmities.
Since the order has been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it suffers from a jurisdictional error.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Calcutta High Court set the order aside. An order passed beyond the four years in s.154(7) suffers from a jurisdictional error, so it can be challenged in writ even after long delay, and the Court also recorded the Department's failure to comply with s.154(3) by not showing that any prior notice was served, and the absence of a Document Identification Number required by the CBDT circular dated 14 August 2019. This was decided by the High Court (Kausik Chanda J) and bears on section 154, section 154(3), section 154(7), section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as WPA 54 of 2026 (Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side). This is the whole checklist for attacking a stale rectification order in one short recent judgment: limitation under s.154(7) computed from the end of the financial year of the order sought to be amended, prior notice under s.154(3) where the amendment increases liability, and the DIN circular. Because the limitation defect is jurisdictional and not a mere irregularity, delay in approaching the writ court did not bar relief — here the delay of about four years was explained by the death of the petitioner's earlier advocate. All consequential recovery proceedings went with the order. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Compute the four years mechanically: from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. A s.143(3) order of 25 February 2015 falls in FY 2014-15, so the outer limit was 31 March 2019.
The petitioner challenged an order dated 25 March 2022 passed under s.154 read with s.143(3). The order sought to rectify an assessment order dated 25 February 2015 passed under s.143(3). Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that no notice had been issued before the order as required by s.154(3), that the order was barred by limitation under s.154(7), and that the document bore no Document Identification Number as mandated by the CBDT circular dated 14 August 2019. Counsel for the Revenue did not meet those points on the merits but submitted that the writ petition had been filed about four years after the impugned order and should not be entertained on the ground of delay. The petitioner explained in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the delay was caused by the death of his earlier advocate. The matter was decided on 2026-03-31 by the High Court (Kausik Chanda J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 25 March 2022 was set aside and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the Department were also set aside. Because the order sought to be rectified was dated 25 February 2015, the last date for passing a rectification order was 31 March 2019, so the order passed on 25 March 2022 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Having been passed beyond limitation it suffered from a jurisdictional error, and the Revenue's objection based on delay in approaching the Court was satisfactorily explained. The Court also found that the Department had failed to comply with s.154(3) by not disclosing that any prior notice was served, and that there was substance in the contention that the document contained no Document Identification Number.
The Court set out s.154(7) verbatim and applied it arithmetically: the order sought to be amended was the s.143(3) order of 25 February 2015, so the four years from the end of that financial year expired on 31 March 2019 and the order of 25 March 2022 was out of time. It then held that an order passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation suffers from a jurisdictional error, which is what allowed the Court to entertain the petition notwithstanding the lapse of about four years, the delay having been explained by the death of the petitioner's earlier advocate. The failures under s.154(3) and under the DIN circular were recorded as further infirmities. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Since the order has been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it suffers from a jurisdictional error."
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-03-31 and is reported as WPA 54 of 2026 (Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 154, section 154(3), section 154(7), section 143(3), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 25 March 2022 was set aside and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the Department were also set aside. Because the order sought to be rectified was dated 25 February 2015, the last date for passing a rectification order was 31 March 2019, so the order passed on 25 March 2022 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Having been passed beyond limitation it suffered from a jurisdictional error, and the Revenue's objection based on delay in approaching the Court was satisfactorily explained. The Court also found that the Department had failed to comply with s.154(3) by not disclosing that any prior notice was served, and that there was substance in the contention that the document contained no Document Identification Number. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section 154, section 154(3), section 154(7), section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Kausik Chanda J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask the Department to produce the s.154(3) notice and proof of service; the absence of any material showing prior notice was held against it here. Check the order for a Document Identification Number and take the point under the CBDT circular dated 14 August 2019 if it is missing. If you are out of time to appeal, do not assume the writ is closed: plead that the order is without jurisdiction, and explain the delay squarely on affidavit — the explanation was accepted here. Ask expressly for consequential recovery proceedings to be set aside as well, which is what the Court ordered.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. The order is dated 31 March 2026 and no search was made for any appeal against it or any later treatment; it should be expected to be recent enough that none exists. The text of s.154(7) applied here matches the departmental page checked under the heading 'Rectification of mistake' with the year stamps 2022 and 2025. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This is a short unreserved order with NO numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph locator can honestly be given; the quote is cited to the order generally. The judgment as printed contains an internal inconsistency about the officer: the opening line says the order under challenge was issued by 'the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 29(1), Kolkata' while the cause title names the respondent as the Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(4), Kolkata. The Court records the submission that no notice was issued as required by s.154(3) and finds that the Department failed to comply by not disclosing that any prior notice was served — that is a finding on the material, not a finding that notice was never issued. The sentence beginning 'Since the order which sought to be rectified' is grammatically incomplete in the source and is reproduced here as printed. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 25 March 2022 was set aside and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the Department were also set aside. Because the order sought to be rectified was dated 25 February 2015, the last date for passing a rectification order was 31 March 2019, so the order passed on 25 March 2022 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Having been passed beyond limitation it suffered from a jurisdictional error, and the Revenue's objection based on delay in approaching the Court was satisfactorily explained. The Court also found that the Department had failed to comply with s.154(3) by not disclosing that any prior notice was served, and that there was substance in the contention that the document contained no Document Identification Number.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?