Sushma Garg vs ACIT, Circle 25(1)

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The Assessee has filed appeals against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 10.3.2025 & 12.3.2025 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2014-15 respectively.

Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order, by dealing with the appeal No. 2765/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17), being lead case.

During the hearing, Ld. AR has filed an application for admission of following additional grounds and submitted that the said additional grounds goes to the root of the matter and have a bearing on the outcome of appeal and in view of the NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 97 Taxman 358 (SC), the same may be admitted.

After perusing the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid additional grounds goes to the root of the matter, hence, need to be admitted. Accordingly, we admit the same by applying the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 97 Taxman 358 (SC).

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us key dates as under and submitted that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and, therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the assessee is barred by limitation in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) SSC Online SC 2693 wherein the Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all 148 notice which is on or after 1^st April 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. He placed on record relevant decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and he brought to our notice relevant findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :-

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities below.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that before Hon’ble Supreme Court, Revenue had conceded that for AY 2015-16, all the appeals have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA, 2020. Based on the findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are inclined to agree with the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee.

As regards other additional ground is concerned, ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, was issued to the assessee dated 29.07.2022 with the approval of ld. PCIT, Delhi and the same is placed at pages 13 & 14 of the paper book. Ld. AR submitted that the approval should have been obtained only from PCCIT as per the amended section 151 (ii) of the Act. Since the notice for reassessment was issued on 29.07.2022 for the AY 2016-17, the amended provisions is applicable. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta HUF vs. ACIT in WPC No.6057/2023 order dated 03.03.2025 and also relied on other decisions of coordinate Benches.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2021. Subsequently, further notices were issued u/s 148A (b) on 29.5.2022 and on 29.07.2022 notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. The relevant copy of the notice is placed on record and before us, ld. AR submitted that for issue of notice u/s 148, the Assessing Officer should have obtained approval from PCCIT as per the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act. Whereas for initiating the proceedings, the Assessing Officer has obtained the prior approval from PCIT-07, Delhi which is not as per the provisions of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) for the issue of applicability of the amended Act. Further he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta HUF (supra) wherein the issue raised by the assessee are directly addressed and the same is reproduced below :-

Similar view was taken by various coordinate Benches in this regard and ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Durga Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.4923/Del/2024 order dated 27.08.2025 held as under :-

In view of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, we hold that the impugned notice as well as proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are set aside and accordingly the reassessment is quashed and the ground raised in the appeal is allowed. Resultantly, the Assessee’s appeal No. 2765/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17) filed by the assessee is allowed.

As regards appeal No. 2809/Del/2025 (AY 2014-15) is concerned, since the additional grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are similar and identical to the additional grounds in the ITA No. 2765/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17), hence, the finding returned by us in ITA No. 2765/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17), as aforesaid, shall, apply mutatis mutandis, to the appeal relating to assessment year 2014-15 also and similarly, the additional grounds raised before us being identical are, allowed in the aforesaid manner. The other grounds in view of quashing of the reassessment order are rendered academic, hence not adjudicated.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed.