AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal o f the assessee is dir ected against the order dated 17.10.2024 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)/ NFAC”) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the best judgment Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w .s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022 w as upheld and appeal was dismissed.
The facts in brief as culled out fro m para 3 of the impugned order are as under:
“As per the Asses sment Order, the appellant is enga ged in Civil cons truction work a nd filed return of i nco me declari ng t otal income a t Rs. 50,30,794/- for A.Y . 2015-16. In t his case, Informa tion r eceived on 24.04.2018. On ve rificati o n of i nformation i t is noticed t hat an am ount of Rs. 1,14,12,829/- has been debited to M/s I nter Oc ean Videsh Ltd. b y M/s Shri Balaji Infra D evel opers Pvt. Ltd and wi thout deducting TDS u/s 1 94C. Also M/s Inter Occean Vides h Lt d. f ound a p aper company co ntr olled by entry o perat or Mr. Neeraj Jai n and havi ng no busi ness. Also forged audit repor t has be en fi led by t he M/s Inter Ocean Videsh L td. f or A Y 2014-15 and 2015-16. Further , it is perti nent to menti oned here that no assessment has bee n done u/s 1 43(3) f or A Y 2015-16 i n the case of assessee c ompany. Theref ore, t he amount of Rs. 1,14,12,829/-debited to M/s Inter Ocean Videsh Ltd. by M/s Shri balaji Infra D evelopers pvt. Ltd. To t he tune of RS. 1,14,12,829/- has esca ped assessment for A Y 2015-16. Accordi ngly, Notice U/s 148A(b) of the Inc ome Tax Act, 1961 was iss ued and dul y ser ved. In r esponse to t he same, the appellant had filed r eturn of income on 31.05.2021 declared same of ori gi nal return. Duri ng the course o f assessment pr oceedi ngs, t he AO was issued notice u/s 142(1) & sho w-case notice. In response to the same, the ap pellant has submitt ed the partiall y details. On perusal o f the documents furnis hed the AO came to the c oncl usi on that t he assessee has failed to provide t he supporting documents amounti ng to Rs. 1,14,12,829/-and same added by t he Assessing officer in t he return of income. The Asses sing Offic er c ompl eted the ass es sment u/s 147 r.w.s. 1 44 by assessi ng the t otal Income Rs. 1,64,43,620/- there by raisi ng the tax demand o f Rs. 1,13,77,284/-.”
Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made in the asse ssment order.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised following grounds:
“1 . That under the facts and circ umst ances of the case, the impugned or der is barr ed by limit ation.
2.That under the facts and circ umst ances of the case, the proc eedings ar e wi thout jurisdiction as no notice U/s. 148A has been issued in terms of Hon'ble S upreme Co urt case i n case of As hish A garwal. "
3.That i n the abs ence of prior approval as req uired u/s . 151, the whol e proc eedings are without j urisdiction.
4.That without prejudice , the approv al of appropriate aut hority, if do not show the a pplication of mind while granti ng approval, suc h approval should not be taken as a vali d ap pr oval, so as to al low the A O to pr oce ed for initiati ng fur ther proc eedings u/s. 147 and notic e u/s. 148.
5.That under the fa cts and circumst ances, i nvo ki ng of Sec. 147 and consequential proceedi ngs u/s . 148 culmi nati ng i nt o Asstt. Order U/s. 147 / 144B is without jurisdictio n, illegal and unsustai nabl e in law as well as on merits .
6.That under the facts and circ umst ances of the case, no additi on of Rs. 1,14,12,829/- U/s . 69C for unex plained expendit ure sho uld have been made.
7.That under the facts and circ umst ances of the case, no i nterest U/s. 234B, 234C should have been c harged. In any, cas e the calculati on ar e exc essive .”
We have heard the ld. AR and ld . DR and also examined the record. At the very outse t, ld. AR argued that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC). It was therefore argued that since neither AO nor the ld . CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the notice u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the assessment order be quashed.
We have also heard the ld . DR who has submitted that the Bench may consider the sub missions with re spect to the applicability of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal case (supra) in its ow n discretion and has prayed for restoring the file to the AO for deciding the matter afresh.
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed legal ground, challeng ing the jurisdictio n of the Assessing Officer to initiate re-assessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee/appellant that though the notice u/s 148 of the Act placed at page 112 of the paper book is purported to be dated 31.03.20 21 but the same has been issued on 15.04.2021 which is evident fro m the ITBA record of the e-proceedings of the case of the assessee, copy of which is at page 113 of the paper book printed extract of the same is as under:
It is therefore submitted that since it is the record of the Revenue itself hence the notice issued on 15.04 .2021 u/s 148 is barred by limitation in view o f the judgment of the Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal ( 2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC), the re-assessment p roceedings initiated under the old or un-amended provisions of sectio n 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), are without authority of law. Regarding these arguments and the extract of the e-proceedings, the notice u/s 148 is issued on 15.04.2021. The ld . DR co uld submit no thing contr ary to the said record of the Revenue itself and left it to the defects to the court to consider the argument.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties including the challenge to the jur isdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whe ther the notice issued u/s 148 on 15.04.2021 for A.Y . 2015-16 is barred by limitation. T he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpre ted the interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for comp letio n within the period prescribed under TOLA.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation u/s 149(1)(b), as ame nded, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period under the o ld regime was still alive on the date o f issuance of notice. Applying the afo resaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 30.06.2021. The notice u/s 148 having been issued on 15.04.2021 , the same is clear ly barred by limitation.
We also no te that identical issues have been examined and decided by Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sh. Dee pak Agarwal vs. DCIT order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA No. 2307/Del/202 5 where in no tices issued on 15.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajeev Bansal (supra) . For ready refer ence, findings of the Co-ordinate Be nch of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:
“2 . The Ld. Counsel for the assesse e, at t he outset, submits t hat in the case of the assessee a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under ne w law which is bar red by limi tation si nce the provisi ons of taxati on and ot her laws (rel axati on and amendment of certai n provisions ) (TOLA) are not applicable for the AY 2015-16 as held by the Hon’bl e Juri sdictional Hi gh Cour t in the case of Ma ke My Trip (India ) Pvt. Ltd. i n WP(c) 2558/2023 dated 24.03.2025.
3.Ld. Counsel further submits t hat recently t he Ho n’bl e Supr eme Co ur t i n the cases of Dee pak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT a nd Others in Civil Appeal No .5177/2025 dated 02.04.2025 noted t hat the R ev enue made a co ncessi on befor e t he H on’bl e Supr eme Co urt whil e disposi ng of f t he appeal in the cas e of Uni on of Indi a & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) (SCC ) O nli ne SC 2693, that for the AY 2015-16 notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have t o b e dropped as the y would not fall for com pletion during the peri od p res cribed unde r t he TOLA. Ld. C ounsel als o submitted t hat similar view has bee n take n by the H on’bl e S uprem e Co urt i n the case of ACIT Vs . Nehal Rashid S hah i n SLP (Civil) Diar y No. (S) 57209/2024 dated 4.4.2025. T herefore, it i s submitted tha t i n the light of thes e decisions the reassessme nt framed for the A Y 2015-16 base d on t he notic e issued u/s 148 of the Act dat ed 30.07.2022, is tim e barred and bad i n law.
4.Ld. DR suppor ted t he ord ers of the Assessi ng Officer.
5.He ard ri val contentio ns, perused t he orders of the aut horities belo w. Admitt edly i n t hi s case notice u/s 148 was issue d on 30. 07.2022 under new law based on whic h the reassessment for the A Y 2015-16 was framed by t he AO on 31.5.2023. The reassess ment was challe nged before the Ld. C IT(Appe als) and the Ld. C IT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecuti on by t he assessee.
6.In the cas e of Make My Tri p (Indi a) Pvt . Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) the Jurisdictional Hi gh Court co nsidered whether reassessment compl eted for the A Y 2015-16 bas ed on a notice issued u/s 148 and the viz a viz t he applicability of the provisi ons of TOLA and base d o n the concession of t he Revenue that for the AY 2015-16 all the notices iss ued on or after 1.4.2 021 wi ll have to be drop ped as the y will not fall f or completion duri ng t he perio d pr esc ribed und er t he TOLA, held that the no tice issued under 148 was beyond the period of limitation and consequently t he s ame is li able t o be s et aside.
7.Further the Hon’ble Supr eme Court in t he case of Deepak S teel & Power L td. Vs. CBDT & Others (s upra) quashed the notices issued u/s 148 obse rvi ng as under: -
“2 . Thes e appeal s ari se fro m 't he order pass ed by t he High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petiti on (C) Nos. 2446 of 2823, 2543 of 2023 date d 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectivel y by whic h the High Court disposed of the ori ginal writ petitions in t he followi ng terms:-
"1 . The memo of appea rance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapa tra, learne d Seni or S tanding Counsel f or R ev enue Departme nt on be half of O pposite Parti es is taken on rec ord.
2.In view of t he or de r passed by this Co urt on 1s t December , 2022 in a batch of writ petiti ons of which W.P. (C) Mo.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income T ax Officer) was a le ad ma tter and the subseque nt or der dat ed 10t h January, 2023 passed i n W.P.(C) Mo.36314 of 2022 (S hiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., R ourkela v. Pri nci pal Commissi o ner of Income Tax , Sambalpur), t he Co urt decli nes t o entertain the pr esent writ petition, but leaves it open to the Pe ti tioner to raise all gr ounds available to the Petitioner in accord ance with law incl udi ng t he grounds urge d in t he present petitio n at the a ppropriate stage as explai ned by the Court in thos e orders.
3.The writ petition is disposed of i n t he above ter ms. "
3.We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Ac harya, the l earned counsel appeari ng for the appellants (a ss essee) and Mr . Chandras hekhar , the lear ned counsel appearing for t he rev enue.
4.The learned co unsel appe ari ng for the rev enue with his usual fai rness invited t he attentio n of this Co urt to a thr ee j udge bench decision of this C ourt i n U ni on o f India and O rs. v. Raj eev Bansal , repor ted in 2024 SCC OnL ine SC 2693, more particularly, pa ragraph 19(f ) which reads thus :-
"19.(f) The Revenue co ncedes that f or t he ass essment ye ar 2015- 2016, al l notices issued o n or after Apri l 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as the y will not fall for compl etion duri ng the peri od presc ribed under t he Taxation and other L aws (Rel axati on and Amendment of Certain Pr ovisions) Act , 2020."
5.As the revenue made a concession in t he af ores aid deci sion that is for the assess ment ye ar 2015-2016, all notices iss ued on or after 1st April, 2 021 will have t o be dropped as they wo uld not fall for compl etion duri ng the peri od presc ribed under t he taxati on and ot her laws (Relaxati on and Amendment of certai n Provisions Act, 2020). Nothi ng furt her is requi red to b e adj udicated in this mat ter as the notic es so f ar as the present litigation is c oncerned is dated 25.6.2021.
6.In view of the aforesaid, i n such circumstances ref erred t o above the ori gi nal writ petiti on nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2 023 r esp ectively fil ed before t he Hi gh C ourt of O rissa at cuttac k stands allowed.
7.The impugned notice t herei n sta nds quashe d and set aside.”
8.Above decisions squarely appl ies to the fac t situati on of the assessee and ther efo re respec tfully followi ng t he above decisions, we hold that the noti ces issued u/s 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for r eopeni ng t he assessment for the A Y 2015-16 are barred by limitation and consequently the r eassessment mad e bas ed on such notices are bad i n law and void ab initi o. T hus, t he impugned reassessment order havi ng been made purs uant t o no tice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 the reass essme nt order is her eby held to be bad i n law and the sam e is quashed. Ground Nos . B, C & D of grounds of a ppeal of the as sessee are allo wed.”
Considering the above facts and circumstances and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’b le Supr eme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (sup ra) and re spectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decisio n in Sh. Deepak Agarwal (supra), we are of the opinion that the no tice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.04 .2021 is b arred by limitation as having been issued beyond the perio d specified u/s 149 of the Act. Conseque ntly, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.