Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 07 ITAT CK 2580

Cloud 9 Projects Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 8 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos. 2661 to 2663/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

47 paragraphs · 2,870 words

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1.

The appeals in ITA No.2661 & 2662 /Del/2026 for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively arise out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 19.01.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.05.2023 and 24.05.2023 in respect of quantum proceedings and appeal in ITA No. 2663/Del/2026 for AY 2015-16 arises out of order of the ld CIT(A) dated 19.01.2026 in the penalty proceedings dated 27.02.2024 passed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer, Del-C(32)(2) (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the preliminary issue to be decided is whether the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act is valid. This goes to root the matter and hence, is taken up first for adjudication.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Notice u/s 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 on 23.06.2021. The ld AR pleaded that the said notice issued was as per old provisions of Section 148 of the Act prior to the substitution by Finance Act, 2021. It was submitted that Section 148 of the Act has been substituted by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01.04.2021 wherein notice u/s 148 of the Act as per the old provisions of Section 148 of the Act applicable upto 31.03.2021 could not have been issued after 31.03.2021. This issue per se was subject matter of various writ petitions filed in various High Courts and ultimately got settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC) dated 04.05.2022. Thereafter, the ld AO issued letter u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 29.05.2022. The assessee filed its reply on 12.06.2022. The ld AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 30.07.2022 rejecting the objections of the assessee and proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022. All these facts are not in dispute before us with regard to dates. Now the short question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the subsequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 is to be treated as time barred or not in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal referred (supra) as under:-

“110.

The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149.

111.

The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was See State of A P v. A P Pensioners Association, (2005) 13 SCC 161 [28]. [This Court observed that the “legal fiction undoubtedly is to be construed in such a manner so as to enable a person, for whose benefit such legal fiction has been created, to obtain all consequences flowing therefrom.”]

PART F required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime.

112.

Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.”

4.

Now let us see whether the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 is within the time in the light of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For this purpose, the following table would be relevant which is reproduced as under:-

S.NParticularsDate
11st notice u/s 148 - deemed SCN u/s 148A(b)23.06.21
2Notice u/s 148A(b) issued on29.05.22
3Reply to Notice U/s 148A(b) / Due date of Reply (No Reply filed by Assessee)12.06.22
4Surviving Period (30.06.2021 - Date of Deemed Notice) (30.06.2021-8 Days
523.06.2021) Last Date for issue of 2nd Notice U/s.148 (i.e 08 days20.06.22
6from 13.96.2022)2nd Notice u/s 14831.07.22
5.

Hence, 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 31.07.2022, the said notice is to be treated as barred by limitation and consequentially reassessment proceedings would be liable to be quashed as void ab initio. This issue was also subject matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Vs. ITO & Anr reported in 445 ITR 1 (Del) dated 30.01.2025. Relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:-

“65.

Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 under the statutory framework, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

66.

By virtue of Section 3 (1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31 12.2020 were extended till 30.06.2021 [Notification No.38/21 dated 27.04.2021]. Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the date of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal is required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act.

67 Additionally, the period from the date of decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal2 till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act. is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had issued the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal4.

68.

In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022-the period of two weeks-is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149 (1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date.

69.

As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A (d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022.

70.

Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149 (1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation.

71.

It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act was received. Thus, the order under Section 148A (d) of the Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act (both dated 30.07.2022) are within the prescribed period. This contention is without merit as it does not take into account that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act necessarily required to be completed within the period available for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the time available to the AO to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act was necessarily truncated and the same was required to be passed on or before 12.07.2022. The fourth proviso to Section 149 of the Act did not come into play as the time period available for the AO to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act was in excess of the seven days.

72.

In view of the above, we find merit in Mr. Sehgal's contention that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of limitation.

73.

The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act; the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act; and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 framed under Section 147 of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14, are set aside. Pending application is also disposed of.”

6.

Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15 is barred by limitation and accordingly the reopening of assessment is hereby quashed.

7.

Since, reopening of assessment has been quashed, the adjudication of the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature and they are left open.

ITA No. 2662 & 2663/Del/2026 Assessment Year 2015-16 – Quantum and penalty appeals

8.

We find that the assessee had raised additional ground before us stating that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 is barred by limitation. This is purely a legal issue and facts relevant for its adjudication are already on record and hence the said additional ground is hereby admitted and the same is first taken up for adjudication.

9.

Now let us see whether the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 is within the time in the light of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For this purpose, the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal referred supra is reproduced as under:-

18.

The present batch of appeals gives rise to the following issues:

a. Whether TOLA and notifications issued under it will also apply to reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021; and

b. Whether the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime between July and September 2022 are valid.

C. Submissions

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 benefits 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: Assessment Within 3 Expiry of Limitation Within six Expiry of Limitation Year Years read with TOLA for Years read with TOLA for (4) (2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable

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).

12.

It could be seen from the above that the revenue had conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that assessment year 2015-16 would not be covered by TOLA and hence the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 based on the extended time limit of TOLA would be barred by limitation. Hence the reassessment for the assessment year 2015-16 also is upon invalid assumption of jurisdiction and gets hit by the limitation and accordingly, the reassessment is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the adjudication of other grounds raised for the assessment year 2015-16 becomes academic in nature.

13.

Since the entire reassessment is quashed, the penalty proceedings arising therefrom would have no legs to stand and hence is hereby quashed.

14.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.