PRABHAT KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX. 1(1)(1), DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWALAssessment Year: 2013-14
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessees against the final assessment order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO) u/s 147
r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2013-14. 2. On hearing both the sides, it comes up that amongst other grounds on merits and also legal grounds, the assessee has raised grounds No.2 and 3 as follows:-
2
“2. That proceedings initiated u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act for the instant assessment year are barred by limitation and both the initiation of proceedings and assumption of juri iction to frame order of assessment and deserves to be quashed as such.
That initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and assumption of juri iction to frame assessment u/s 147/144C(13) of the Act are without satisfying the statutory preconditions provided in the Act and therefore without juri iction and deserve to be quashed as such.”
Primarily the contention of the ld. counsel is that the notice which was issued on 27.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation being an issue covered by the dispute arising out of issuance of notices under the old regime and new regime of the Act with regard to reopening assessments which was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision Union of India vs. Ashish Aggarwal, 444 ITR 1. 4. We find that in regard to the present assessment year, the period of limitation for issuing notices upto six years would have ended on 31.03.2020, but, due to extended period provided by virtue of the Act r.w. TOLA, the period extended till 30.06.2021. The sanction sought to be obtained u/s 151 of the Act was upto 30.06.2021. The original notice u/s 148 which is deemed to be a show cause notice u/s 148(A)(b) of the Act was issued on 24.05.2021 and the time surviving from the date of issuance of show cause notice till the expiry of period as extended by TOLA which was 30.06.2021, would thus be additional 37 days. The notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 28.05.2022 which was replied by the assessee on 15.06.2022. The period of deemed stay to be extended as per 3
third proviso to section 149 would thus be 24.05.2021 to 15.06.2022 and, thus, giving benefit of 37 days from 15.06.2022, the last date for issuing notice u/s 148 was 23.07.2022 while the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 27.07.2022. 5. The ld. counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi
2013-14, the notice issued was found to be beyond limitation. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the submissions as follows:-
S.
No.
Particulars
Appellant’s case
Ram Balram
Buildhome
(P) Ltd.
i)
Assessment Year
2013-14
2013-14
ii)
First notice issued u/s 148 of the Act
24.05.2021
1.6.2021
iii)
Surviving time till 30.6.2021
37 days
29 days iv)
SCN issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act in pursuance to directions of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal
28.5.2022
30.3.2022
v)
Reply filed on 15.6.2022
13.06.2022
vi)
Period expired to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act
23.7.2022
12.01.2022
vii) Second notice issued u/s 148 of the Act
27.7.2022
30.7.2022
“Relevant finding of the Judgment is as under:
“69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022. 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation.
4
It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was received. Thus, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act (both dated 30.07.2022) are within the prescribed period. This contention is without merit as it does not take into account that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act necessarily required to be completed within the period available for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the time available to the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was necessarily truncated and the same was required to be passed on or before 12.07.2022. The fourth proviso to Section 149 of the Act did not come into play as the time period available for the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was in excess of the seven days.
In view of the above, we find merit in Mr. Sehgal's contention that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of limitation.
The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148 (d) of the Act; the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act; and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 framed under Section 147 of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14, are set aside. Pending application is also disposed of.”
Reliance is also placed upon the following judgments i) ITA 6140/Mum/2024 Nilanjana Arvinder Singh vs. DCIT (pages 290 - 307 of JPB-II) ii) ITA 6848/Mum/2024 Md. Salim Abdul Hakim Khan vs. ITO (pages 358 -365 of JPB-II) iii) ITA 5499/Mum/2024 DCIT vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal (pages 366-373 of JPB-II) iii) ITA 3553/Mum/2024 ACIT vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani (pages 374 - 382 of JPB-II) 5
iv) ITA 29 & 30/RPR/2025 DCIT vs. Sh. Vinay Agrawal (pages 308 - 331 of JPB-II) v) ITA 307/RPR/2024 M/s. Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Parboiling Plant vs. ITO
(pages 332 - 357 of JPB-II)
In the light of the aforesaid, the above grounds No.2 and 3 are sustained. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The impugned assessment is quashed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2025. (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 18th June, 2025. dk