Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 ITAT CK 6258

Amish Aggarwal vs ITO, Ward 8(1)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 10 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahavir Singh, Vice President · M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 4974/Del/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 605 words

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.3.2026. Assessment was framed vide order dated 24.5.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) relevant to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

The assessee has raised the legal ground in appeal that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. This goes to root the matter and hence, is taken up first for adjudication.

4.

Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 on 25.6.2021 under the old regime and because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notice u/s. 148A also came into effect on 25.6.2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the Assessing Officer has 6 days (25.6.2021 to 30.6.2021) to issue notice u/s. 148 as per the new regime. This time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this case, the assessee submitted the response on 14.6.2022. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer then had 6 days from 14.6.2022 to issue a reassessment notice u/s. 148 of the new regime. Thus the time limit for issuance of a notice u/s. 148 of the new regime ended on 20.6.2022 whereas the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 on dated 29.7.2022, hence, being beyond the limitation period laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. In this regard he has submitted the facts in a tabulation form as under :

S.No.
1.Assessment year2014-15
2.Period of limitation u/s. 149 (3 years or 6 years)6 years
3.Original period of limitation31.03.2021
4.Extended period of limitation as per IT act read with TOLA30.06.2021
5.Sanction to be obtained u/s. 151 till 30.6.2021 (within 6 years)PCIT
6.Date of original notice u/s. 148 – deemed SCN u/s. 148A(b)25.06.2021
7.Time surviving from date of issuance of deemed SCN till expiry of period as extended by TOLA (from 25.06.201 till 30.6.2021)6 days
8.Period of deemed stay to be excluded as per 3rd provisio to section 149 (Date of original 148 till date of filing of reply by assessee)25.06.2021 to 14.6.2022
9.Last date for issuing notice u/s. 148 (i.e. 14.6.2022 + 6 days)20.06.2022
10.Actual date of issuance of notice u/s. 14829.07.2022
Notice u/s. 148 issued under new regime is beyond time limit prescribed.
5.

Thus, he prayed for quashing of the notice u/s. 148 and consequent reassessment proceedings.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) the extended due date for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act expired on 20-06-2022 and since, the notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued on 29-07-2022 the said notice is to be treated as time barred by limitation and consequentially reassessment proceedings would be liable to be quashed as void ab initio. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 29-07-2022 is time barred by limitation, thus, the same is quashed and accordingly consequent reassessment is also quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.

8.

Since we have decided the legal ground in favour of the assessee, the other grounds have become academic.

9.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.