Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 02 ITAT CK 3847

ITO vs Aggarwal Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 12 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahavir Singh, Vice President · S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 5074/DEL/2025 (AYR 2013-14) and Cross Objection No. 3/DEL/2026 (AYR 2013-14)

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 · 661 words

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee, both are arising out of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10280584 dated 7.04.2025. Since the appeal and Cross Objections both are inter-connected, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

First we deal with Assessee’s Cross Objection No. 219/Del/2025 (AY 2015-16).

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has raised jurisdictional issue in the cross objection that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. For this, assessee has only raised and argued the following Ground No. 4 :

“That the order passed u/s. 148A(d) and notice issued u/s. 148, issued after the surviving period hence barred by limitation, in the light of the judgement of Higher Courts. So, the reopening and assessment order passed by the AO is void ab initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed.”

4.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment order is barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessment has been framed on the basis of second notice dated 29.7.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act. He explained the chronological list of relevant events, which reads as under:-

DateEvent
1st notice u/s. 148 issued26.6.2021
Extended limitation as per the TOLA30.6.2021
No. of days b/w First Notice u/s. 148 and 30.6.2021 (surviving period)5 days (26.6.2021 to 30.6.2021)
Minimum period available with AO to issue order u/s. 148A(d) as per fourth proviso of section 1497 days
Surviving time (extended to 7 days)7 days
Date of decision of Ashish Agarwal4.5.2022
Notice u/s. 148A(b) issued on27.5.2022
Time given2 weeks (i.e. by 10.6.2022)
Assessee’s reply10.6.2022
Order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 had to be passed till17.6.2022 (i.e. 7 days after assessee’s reply dated 10.6.2022)
Order u/s. 148A(d) & Second Noticeu/s. 148 issued on29.7.2022 (i.e. 42 days after the surviving / balance time period)
4.1

In view of aforesaid chronological list of relevant events, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Revenue had only 7 days to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act of the new regime, i.e. till 17.6.2022, after receipt of the response from the assessee on 10.6.2022 to the show cause notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act. However, undisputedly, in the present case, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29.7.2022, i.e., 42 days after the surviving/ balance time. So, notice u/s. 148 issued on 29.7.2022 is barred by limitation and hence bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ld. DR could not contorovert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR for the assessee.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and gone through the above noted facts and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and the same is therefore, set aside, as a result thereof, the assessment order is hereby quashed and accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner.

6.

As regards Revenue’s appeal No. 5074/Del/2025 (AY 2013-14) is concerned, since we have already decided the Assessee’s cross objection on the jurisdictional issue in favour of the Assessee by setting aside the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and subsequently, quashing the assessment order, thus, the issues raised in the Revenue’s appeal have become infructuous and dismissed the same accordingly.

7.

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal stand dismissed.