AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No.5523 & 5522/Del/2025 for assessment year 2015-16 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s as many orders, both dated 16.07.2025, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078569458(1) & 10785697971(1), involving proceedings under section 147 & 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Coming to the assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No. 5523/Del/2025, we notice during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself. The learned Assessing Officer makes it clear in his assessment order dated 30.05.2023 at page 2 in para 2.1 onwards that he had set into motion his former round of the impugned reopening against the assessee vide section 148 notice dated 30.06.2021. And that thereafter he re-initiated the impugned latter round of the very proceedings in the assessee’s case vide notice dated 27.05.2022 in light of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agrawal (2023) 1 SCC 517 (SC) that earlier notice would be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Act, as substituted by Finance Act, 2021. There is further no dispute that all this culminated in the impugned assessment in the assessee’s case framed on 30.05.2023, inter alia, making section 69A addition of Rs.1,54,89,210/-; disallowance/addition under section 37 of Rs.7,12,921/- and Rs.37,473/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act; respectively, which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed its instant quantum appeal ITA No. 5523/Del/2025.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings against and in support of the impugned reopening. We find that the instant issue of validity of the impugned reopening for AY 2015 -16, such an instance is no more res integra in light of the tribunal’s recent learned coordinate bench’s order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA No. 2307/Del/2025 (Sh. Deepak Agarwal vs. DCIT) having quashed a similar section 148 action , reading as under:
“2.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in the case of the assessee a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law which is barred by limitation since the provisions of taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of cer tain provisions) (TOLA) are not applicable for the AY 2015 -16 as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. in WP(c) 2558/2023 dated 24.03.2025.
3.Ld. Counsel further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT and Others in Civil Appeal No.5177/2025 dated 02.04.2025 noted that the Revenue made a concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court whil e disposing off the appeal in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) (SCC) Online SC 2693, that for the AY 2015 -16 notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA. Ld. Counsel also submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Nehal Rashid Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary No. (S) 57209/2024 dated 4.4.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that in the l ight of these decisions the reassessment framed for the AY 2015-16 based on the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022, is time barred and bad in law.
4.Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer.
5.Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly in this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law based on which the reassessment for the AY 2015 -16 was framed by the AO on 31.5.2023. The reassessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee.
6.In the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) the Jurisdictional High Court considered whether reassessment completed for the AY 2015 -16 based on a notice issued u/s 148 and the viz a viz the applicability of the provisions of TOLA and bas ed on the concession of the Revenue that for the AY 2015 -16 all the notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA, held that the notice issued under 148 was b eyond the period of limitation and consequently the same is liable to be set aside.
7.Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others (supra) quashed the notices issued u/s 148 observing as under: -
“2.These appeals arise from 'the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2823, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ peti tions in the following terms: -
"1.The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record.
2.In view of the order passed by this Court on 1 s t December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) Mo.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Mo.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in thos e orders.
3.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms."
3.We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus: -
"19.(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015 -2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."
5.As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015 -2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.
6.In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed.
7.The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.”
8.Above decisions squarely applies to the fact situation of the assessee and therefore respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the notices issued u/s 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for reopening the assessment for the AY 2015 -16 are barred by limi tation and consequently the reassessment made based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, the impugned reassessment order having been made pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 the reassessment order is hereby held to be bad in law and the same is quashed. Ground Nos. B, C & D of grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.”
We adopt the above extracted detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned reopening in the instant case in very terms. All the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the same stand rejected. This assessee’s “quantum” appeal succeeds.
Same order to follow in the assessee’s section 271B penalty appeal ITA No.5522/Del/2025 as it has no legs to stand any more once the reopening itself stands quashed in preceding terms. Accepted therefore.
All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 5523 & 5522/Del/2025 are allowed in the above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.