Loading judgment…
Facts
A search operation on M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. and its group cases led to the seizure of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- from the assessee's residence. The assessment for AY 2013-14 was later re-opened under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an addition of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- was made.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 26/07/2022 was barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation and therefore liable to be quashed.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 153A, 153C, 69A, 144B, 148A, 149, 151, 139, 132, 132A, 163
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
Assessee by Sh. Amit Goel, Adv and Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 04/05/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC)’ for short) Delhi dated 07/06/2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
The Grounds of Appeal
are as under:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is bad-in-law, illegal, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice u/s 148 along with assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated are contrary to the provisions of law including the specific provisions of section 147 to section 151A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the reassessment proceeding initiated along with assessment order passed are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 is non-est as it does not have DIN on the body of such notice and accordingly the said notice and the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings initiated by JAO is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no notice under section 143(2) was issued/served on the appellant, hence the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings are contrary to section 144B of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal
on merit.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order.”
Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the assessment order are as under:-
“1. The assessee. Shri Susil Kumar has filed its ITR for A.Y. 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 60,21,180/-. The case was not assessed u/s 143(3) or 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. for the year under consideration.
1.1 Based on specific intelligence regarding evasion of central excise duty by M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd., Raigad, Maharashtra, searches were conducted by the officers of DGCEI (Hqrs.) on 20.03.2013: Investigations by DGCEI revealed that M/s Bhushan Steels Ltd. (BSL) was availing cenvat credit of Central excise duty paid on zinc ingots purchased from M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Haridwar in a fraudulent manner: The zinc so purchased by M/s BSL was diverted and sold in the open market at Delhi/Aligarh/Agra and credit of duty was availed at their Khopoli plant on the basis of invoices only without receiving the goods and without using the same in the manufacture of finished goods. 1.2 A search operation had been conducted in the group case and at the residences of key persons by DGCEI on 20.03.2013. The residence of the assessee, Shri. Sushilkumar has also been searched. During the search proceedings, a sum of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- had been seized from the said residence of the assessee
1.3 Subsequently, Income tax Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were conducted on the Bhushan Steel Ltd. group of cases on 13.06.2014. Case of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. was assessed u/s 153Ar.w.s. 143(3) of IT Act for assessment years from AY 2009-10 to AY 2015-16 by the ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vide order dated 30.12.2016. The issues communicated by the DRI were examined during assessment and additions were made on these issues in each assessment year. Addition of Rs. 48,82,10,037/- was made during AY 2013-14 on this issue. These facts have been gathered from assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-New Delhi, which is available on ITBА portal. It is also observed that case of Sh. Pahkaj Tiwari has also been assessed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of IT Act and addition of Rs.6,20,000/- being cash seized during search operations of the DGCEI has been made vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016.
1.4 However no, assessment had been made in the case of the assessee, Shrí. Sushilkumar for the seized cash and thereby the said seized cash of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- escaped assessment for the A.Y.2013-14. Hence, the case of the assessee for the A.Y.2013-14 has been re-opened u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act.”
An assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act vide order dated 25/05/2023 wherein the Ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 25/05/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/06/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee by confirming the additions made by the A.O. Aggrieved by theorder of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 07/06/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on Ground No. 1, vehemently submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26/07/2022 was barred by limitation, therefore, the assessment order passed pursuant to the said notice is liable to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel submitted that originally notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29/06/2021 under the old provisions of Section 148 of the Act i.e prior to substitution of Section 148 by Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f.
01/04/2021. The notice u/s 148 of the Act as per the old provisions of Section 148 of the Act applicable up to 31/03/2021 and the same could not have been issued after 31/03/2021. Further submitted that the A.O. issued a letter u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 26/05/2022, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (S.C), the A.O. had time to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act only till 30/06/2021 i.e. precisely ‘one day’ and the notice issued on 26/07/2022 is barred by limitation. Thus submitted that in view of defective notice which was barred by limitation,the consequential assessment proceedings will be vitiated, thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ground No. 1 of the Assessee regarding the contention that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation does not have merit.
Further submitted that, issuing of the notice and the initiation of re- assessmentproceedings are well within the limitation, thus relying on the order of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, Return of income was filed by the Assessee u/s 139 of the Act on 23/09/2013, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30/12/2016. Notice under old Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/06/2016 (prior to substitution of Section 148 of the Act by Finance Act, 2021). It is pertinent to note that the Section 148 of the Act has been substituted by Finance Act, 2021 and according to Section 148 of the Act of the old provision, notice u/s 148 of the Act could not have been issued after 31/03/2021.
On the issue of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, various writ petitions were filed before various Hon'ble High Courts and ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) decided the matter. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), the A.O. issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 26/05/2022.
In the present case, original notice has been issued u/s 148 of the Act (Old Provision) on 29/06/2021. Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act has been issued on 26/05/2022. Due date for filing reply to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act was 10/06/2022 and the Assessee filed reply on 09/06/2022. Therefore, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) the extended time by which notice should have been issued was on or before 10/06/2022.
However, the actual notice has been issued on 26/07/2022 which is beyond the period of limitation.
In an identical situation the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT reported in 2025 (4) TMI and 6167/MUM/2024 vide order dated 13/03/2025, held as under:-
“13. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In order to decide the issue at hand, it is, at the outset, relevant to note that the provisions of section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, which provides the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and the same reads as follows: -
"Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year -- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021:
Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 8 the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation -- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151."
Therefore, from the plain reading of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act, it is evident that no notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act. Further, clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act provides the time period of 10 years to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. We find that the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act specifically provides that no notice under section 148 of the Act, as per the amended provisions, can be issued at any time for assessment year beginning on or before 01/04/2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of section 149(1)(b), as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021.
Section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, reads as follows: -
"Time limit for notice.
(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, -- ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 9 (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.
Explanation.-- In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.
(3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012."
From the plain reading of section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, it is evident that the same provides period of 4 years, up to 6 years, and up to 16 years for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, provided the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the time limit of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2013-14, expired on 31/03/2018, and the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31/03/2020. Therefore, in the present case, the time period covered under the provisions of the TOLA, i.e. from 20/03/2020 ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 10 to 31/03/2021, only includes 30/03/2020, i.e., 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is evident from the record that the original notice under section 148 of the Act, which was deemed to be a notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), was issued on 29/06/2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) in paragraph-114(b) held that the TOLA will continue to apply to the Act after 01/04/2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Act falls for completion between 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021. Therefore, applying the aforesaid ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that as the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expires on 31/03/2020, which fell within the period from 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021, therefore, the notice issued on 29/06/2021, which was deemed to be noticed under section 148A(b) of the Act, is covered under the extended time limit till 30/06/2021 provided under the TOLA.
As regards the submission of the learned DR that the time period from the date of issuance of the deemed show cause notice till the date of filing of response by the assessee shall be excluded under the third proviso to section 149 of the Act, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-106 and 107 of its decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra), observed as follows: -
"106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and materials relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirty days from the date of the judgment. A show cause notice is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. Due to the legal ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 11 fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices.
The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assesses to respond to the show cause notice under section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes "the time or extended time allowed to the assessee." Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation of limitation given the third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices."
From the perusal of the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that while computing the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148, the time during which the show cause notice was stayed till the supply of relevant information or material by the AO and further period of two weeks allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice should be excluded. We find that while examining the validity of notices issued from 01/04/2021 to 30/06/2021 under the old regime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), analysing the interplay of Ashish Agarwal (supra) with the TOLA, in paragraph- 108 of its judgment observed as follows: - "108. The Income Tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under Section 148, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow from the fiction. 163 Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30 June 2021."
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the surviving time under the Act read with the TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notice, including issuance of re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act under the new regime. While explaining the methodology for computation of the surviving or balance time limit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-112 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed as follows: - "112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty- one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022."
Therefore, the surviving/balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30/06/2021. Since, in the present case, we find that the period of 6 years ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 13 from the end of the relevant assessment year expires on 31/03/2020, which falls within the time period from 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021, in order to compute the surviving/balance time as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-108, it is relevant to note the following dates: - S. No. Particulars Dates 1 Period of Limitation under the Old Act 31.03.2020 2 First Notice issued u/s 14829.06.2021 3 Extended Limitation as per the TOLA 30.06.2021 4 Surviving Time 2 Days 5 Date of Decision of Ashish Agarwal 04.05.2022 6 Notice u/s 148A(b) 24.05.2022 7 Time Given 30 Days 8 Assessee's Reply 24.06.2022 9 Order u/s 148A(d) 28.07.2022 10 Second Notice u/s 14828.07.2022
Therefore, computing the surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Revenue had only 2 days (i.e., between 29/06/2021 to 30/06/2021) to issue notice under section 148 of the Act of the new regime in the present case, i.e. till 26/06/2022, after receipt of the response from the assessee on 24/06/2022 to the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. However, undisputedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 28/07/2022, i.e., 32 days after the surviving/balance time period as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).
We find that even if the benefit of the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act is granted to the Revenue, since the remaining period in the present case, after the exclusion of time period as provided in the third proviso to section 149, is less than 7 days, even then the notice dated 28/07/2022 under ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 14 section 148 of the Act was issued much beyond the 7 days' extension provided in the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act.
As regards the other contention of the learned DR that as per the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has time period of one month from the end of the month in which the reply is received from the assessee, and therefore, since in the present case, the assessee filed its reply on 24/06/2022, the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is within the limitation period, we find that similar argument of the Revenue was negated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v/s Income-tax Officer, reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi), by observing as follows: - "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.
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.
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 148A(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."
Therefore, in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision cited supra, we do not find any merits in the aforesaid submission of the learned DR, and the reliance placed by the learned DR upon the decision of the SMC Bench of the Tribunal in PushpadeviShivlalRathi v/s ITO, in ITA No. 1995/Pun./2024, dated 04/12/2024 is also of no relevance.
Therefore, having considered the provisions of the Act, pre as well as post the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the TOLA, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), we are of the considered view that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is barred by limitation period specified under section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed.”
In the present case, as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the relevant dates for computing the date of limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act are tabulated as under:-
Sl. Particulars Date No. A Date of original notice issued u/s 148 29.06.2021 B Time remaining till 30.06.2021 1 Day C Date of notice issued u/s 148A(b) 26.05.2022 D Due date for filing of reply to notice issued u/s 10.06.2022 148A(b) E Reply/objection filed on 09.06.2022 F Extended date by which notice should have been 10.06.2022 issued u/s 148 (E+B) G Actual date of notice issued u/s 148 26.07.2022
Considering the above facts and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raju Bansal (supra), we are of the opinion that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26/07/2022 is barred by the period specified u/s 149 of the Act, consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed.
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.