Tillsoil Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

"1.i. That the ex-party order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 29, (hereinafter called CIT – A) Dt. 08-01-2026 confirming the Order of Assessment Unit u/s 147/144 Dt. 10-05-2023, is illegal, unjust, opposed to facts and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.

ii.

That all 4 Notices for hearing of appeal were posted on the Portal, but not served on the appellant. E-mail was sent to previous consultant at [email protected] which were not communicated to the appellant, resulting in ex-party order of appeal.

iii.

That each ground of appeal is independent, without prejudice to each other. Rs. 81,34,520/-

2.

i. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT – A and Ld. AO have both erred in making and confirming the Assessment when the Notices issued u/s 148A(b), 148 & Order u/s 148A(d) are issued by a Non-Jurisdictional Ward AO, who had no pecuniary jurisdiction to assess income declared at Rs. 49,31,570/-.

ii.

That the correct jurisdiction of the appellant was with the ACIT and not with the Ward ITO, when the Appellant’s income was above Rs. 30 Lakhs, in terms of CBDT guidelines.

iii.

That all the consequent orders in pursuance to illegal notices / orders issued/passed by a non-jurisdictional Ward ITO are void-ab-initio and the same be annulled.

3.

i. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, and Ld. CIT – A have both erred in making an assessment on the basis of time barred notice u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 both dated 22.07.2022 issued beyond the surviving period, in terms of fourth proviso to Section 149 of the IT Act.

ii.

That in terms of Supreme Court decisions in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal r.w. TOLA, time limit for issue of notices u/s 148 expired on 17.06.2022 i.e. 7 days from the date of reply filed by the Appellant on 09.06.2022, since the original notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.06.2021 and 7 days’ time is allowed under proviso 4 of Section 149 of the IT Act.

iii.

That the assessment made in pursuance of a time barred notice is a nullity and all consequent Orders are also void-ab-initio.

4.

i. That without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 to 3, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT – A and Ld. AO have both erred in taxing the forfeiture of advance money received against sale of property, as an income, which is a capital receipt u/s 51 of the Act, as applicable to AY 2013-14.

ii.

That the advance received against sale of property, under an agreement to sell, if forfeited for nonperformance by the buyer is taxable u/s 56(2)(ix) only from AY 2015-16.

iii.

That the addition of Rs. 1,09,58,000/- illegally made and confirmed on wrong interpretation of Section 51 and 56(2)(ix) of the Act be deleted.

5.

i. That without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 to 4, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT – A and Ld. AO have both erred in confirming and making assessment u/s 148, after six years, when the reasons recorded did not mention any material facts required for assessment, not disclosed in the ITR and enclosed documents.

ii.

That the assessment made on the basis of invalid reopening u/s 148 be annulled.

6.

i. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 to 5, on the facts of the case and in law, Ld. CIT – A and Ld. AO have both erred in confirming and making an assessment, based on notices manually issued u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 by the JAO in place of Faceless Proceedings to be carried on by FAO, as per u/s 151A r.w. notification Dt. 29-03-2022.

ii.

That in the case of ADIT (INTL. Taxn) Vs. Deepanjan Roy, the Hon’ble Supreme court vide order dated 16-07-2025 dismissed the SLP against the order of Telangana High Court holding that there is no reason to interfere with the High Court’s Order, holding that the issue of manual notices u/s 148A(b), 148A(d), 148 and 147 after Dt. 29-03-2022 – makes the re-assessment notices and orders invalid.

iii.

That the assessment so framed without issue of valid faceless notices u/s 148 is void-ab-initio and the same be annulled.

7.

That the Net Income of the Appellant be reduced by Rs. 1,09,58,000/-.”

'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 certain 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 while 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 light 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 based 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 beyond 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 petitions 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^st 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 those 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 limitation 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 re-assessment 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."