Income Tax Officer Ward-44(1) vs Savita Aggarwal

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.06.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065967388(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2015-16.

Heard and perused the records and what comes up on hearing is that assessee’s returned was subjected to reassessment after a survey proceeding and AO made an addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged bogus entries and the income of the assessee was recomputed. Assessee preferred an appeal where succeeded for which department is in appeal before this Tribunal, however, assessee filed an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules raising grounds alleging that assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and are without compliance of provision of Section 149(1) r.w.s TOLA Act, 2022.

The ld. DR has opposed the grounds, however, what comes up from the fact is that the assessment therein involves in AY: 2015-16 and in regard to this assessment year as for the purpose of Section 148 the notice issued on 24.05.2021 is beyond the period of limitation and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxman.com 70 (SC) has taken note of the departments admission that in regard to the AY: 2015-16 the period of limitation extended by TOLA does not apply and similar has been fate of various similar reassessments for AY: 2015-16. Recently, the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of IBIBO Group Private Limited Vs. Asst. CIT WP(C) 17639/2022 dated 13.12.2024 (Del) has quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY: 2015-16 on identical facts relying on the decision of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra).

In the light of the aforesaid we are inclined to sustain the additional ground as raised and the appeal of the revenue dismissed.