AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders all dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Orders dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16.
In all the matters the assesse has raised the jurisdictional ground of passing orders by the Ld. AO against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Aggarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2002; the order impugned having been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as per the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as above and thus, the same are liable to be quashed as the case made out by the assesse has been reiterated by the Ld. AR.
Having regard to the fact that all the matters relate to the jurisdictional ground, these are heard at the threshold and we have decided to proceed with the same at the initial stage itself. We also note that since all these matters relate to the identical issues, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.
ITA No.404/Del/2026 (AY : 2013-14)
The notice under Section 148 of the Act was initially issued on 08.06.2021 which was deemed to have been the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 needs to be applied in the following manner:-
| Period of limitation to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act as per decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) Para 109 to 114 (example para 112) | ||
| a. | No. of days remaining within the period of limitation, on the issue of original (1st) Notice under Section 148 (deemed notice u/s 148A(b) Date of notice 08.06.2021 to limitation date 30.06.2021 | 22 days |
| b. | Period to be excluded for calculate limitation (para 111 and 112) is 30.06.2021 to 13.06.2022 | 30.06.2021 to 13.06.2022 |
| c. | Last date (limitation period) to issue notice under section 148 of the Act (13.06.2022 + 22 days) (para 111 to 114) | 05.07.2022 |
| d. | Order passed under Section 148A(d) | 27.07.2022 |
| d. | Notice issued under Section 148 | 28.07.2022 |
Considering the notice under Section 148 dated 08.06.2021 the surviving time available between the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 is, 22 days. Apart from that, the period from 30.06.2021 to 13.06.2022 is to be excluded as the assessee filed its response on 13.06.2022. Against the subsequent notice issued by the AO under Section 148A(b) of the Act in compliance with the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as above. The last date, i.e., the limitation period to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act by taking into account 22 days of surviving time comes to 05.07.2022. As in the case in hand, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022, the same is found to be barred by limitation and, therefore, liable to be quashed as submitted by the Ld. AR is found to be acceptable. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied upon very many judgements passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and by the Coordinate Benches.
Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO under Section 148 of the Act is found to be bad in law and, thus, not sustainable. Relevant mention that this particular aspect of the matter has not been controverted by the Ld. DR. Thus, with the aforesaid observation, the entire assessment proceedings is found to be void ab initio and, therefore, quashed.
Having regard to the fact that this identical facts exists in the assessment made by the Ld. AO for AY 2014-15, the observation and the order passed hereinabove would apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2014-15.
ITA No.406/Del/2026 (AY 2015-16)
At the time of hearing of the matter, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assesseee has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). He has further drawn our attention to para 18(f) of the said judgement wherefrom it appears that the Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16 all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. In that view of the matter, he, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO is not sustainable and, therefore, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. Such submission has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR.
In this regard, he has further relied upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No.6447 & 6448/Del/2025 for AYs 2013-14 and 2015-16 whereby and whereunder, considering the concession given by the Addl. Solicitor General of India in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the entire proceedings have been quashed with the following observations:-
“15.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an admitted fact that on first occasion, notice u/s 148 in the case of assessee was issued on 09.06.2021 which was dropped and fresh proceedings u/s 148 of the Act were initiated in terms of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and after following the amended provisions of section 148A, fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022. The Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) has made categorical statement before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued for Asst. Year 2015-16 on or after 1st April 2021 will be dropped. However, in the instant case, no such action has been taken and re-assessment order was passed on the basis of fresh notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 28.07.2022. The relevant extract of the assertion made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reproduced in para 19(f) of the order of Rajeev Bansal (supra) are as under:
"19.Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:
a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act;
b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial be nefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re-assessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act;
d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime;
e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, Including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:
f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;
g. Section 2 of TOLA defines "specified Act" to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and
h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra).
16.Looking to the facts and considering the assessment year involved is 2015-16, notice issued in the case of originally on Kaushalya Gupta Vs. ITO 08.06.2021 and later on 28.07.2022 which both the dates have fallen on or after 1st April, 2021, therefore, both the notice deserves to be dropped in view of the admission made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Further, for Assessment Year 2015-16, no notice u/s 148 of the Act could be issued after the expiring of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year which limitation expired on 31st March, 2022. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) has observed that TOLA is not applicable for Asst. Year 2015-16, therefore, even otherwise, under the old provisions of section 149 of the Act, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for Asst. Year 2015-16 on 28.07.2022 is barred by limitation.”
Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the assessment for AY 2015-16 is found to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, quashed.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.