TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 17/07/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 07/03/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

The notice u/s 148 is bad in law and without juri iction as the juri ictional requirement of section 147 to 151A of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, failed to condone of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by the appellant as per the provisions of section 249 r.w.s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961

The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 07.03.2024 is bad in law. Therefore, should be set aside.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,47,790/- made by the Ld.AO, being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,06,862/- being interest income earned on time deposits made by the Ld. AO which is not taxable u/s 80P of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A), erred in upholding the deduction claimed chapter VIA of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,13,660/- of the Act made by the Ld. AO.

The Ld. AO has erred in the levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act.

The Ld. AO has erred in the initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.”

The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society. For the Assessment Year 2015-2016 reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee under Section 147 of the Act. Notice, dated 06/04/2022, was issued to the Assessee under Section 148 of the Act. The aforesaid reassessment proceedings culminated into passing into Assessment Order, dated 07/03/2024, under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances while assessing the income of the Assessee at INR.52,54,550/- as against ‘Nil’ income Assessment Year 2015-2016

Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) which was dismissed by way of impugned order, dated 17/07/2025, as being barred by limitation since the Learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.

Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

We have heard both the sides, considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record.

We find that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee on the ground the same is barred by limitation. It is admitted position that delay of 150 days in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Explaining the reason for delay, the Assessee has placed on record affidavit sworn by the Secretary of the Assessee- Cooperative Housing Society, wherein it has been stated as under:

That several members of the society are senior citizens and are not conversant with technological processes, including operations of the income-tax e-filing portal and handling of electronic notices and communications.

That the Assessee received notices under section 148A and Assessment Year 2015-2016

That subsequent to such filing, the Assessee did not receive any further communication or notice under section 142(1), section 143(2), any additional notice under section 142(1), or any show cause notice either by post or through email (vipulopticals.avi@gmail.com) on its registered communication address. The assessment order dated 07-03-2024 was never served upon the Assessee either in hard copy or through the registered email id, viz. vipulopticals sv@gmail.com.

That no such notices or orders were visible or reflected on the income-tax e-filing portal of the Assessee. Consequently, the society had no knowledge of any ongoing proceedings or of any order having been passed

That the Assessee first became aware of the existence of such an assessment order only upon receipt of a Penalty Notice pertaining to the said assessment year. Upon verification of the income-tax portal thereafter, it became apparent that an assessment order had been passed in March 2024. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was solely on account of the non-service of the assessment order and absence of knowledge of the same. Immediately upon becoming aware, the Assessee filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay.”

1. By way of the above affidavit, the Assessee has explained that the notice issued by the Learned CIT(A) was neither received by post on the address of the Assessee nor over email [i.e. vipulopticals.sv@gmail.com] mentioned in Memorandum of Appeal in Form 35. It is the case of the Assessee that knowledge of the Assessment Order having being passed was acquired by the Assessee only on receiving penalty notice and on subsequent verification of the Income Tax Business Application Portal in March, 2024. We find that while the Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that no reply have been furnished by the Assessee, the Learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee in Memorandum of Appeal in Assessment Year 2015-2016

On merits, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law since the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 06/04/2022. Since the said notice has been issued after 01/04/2021, the same is without juri iction and has to be withdrawn in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). In support the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed on record the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025] along with other judicial precedents.

1. The above legal plea made on behalf of the Assessee was opposed by the Learned Departmental Representative. The Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) had no application to the facts of the present case since the notices under Section 148A/148 were issued in the present case under the new regime.

2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and have perused the material on record including the judicial precedents cited during the course of hearing. Assessment Year 2015-2016

3. On perusal of Paragraph 6 to 12 of the judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) it becomes clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with cases where notices issued under Section 148 of the Act as applicable prior to amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 [for short ‘the Old Regime’] between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021 which were quashed by the various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2023] 1 SCC 617, exercising powers under Section 142 of the Constitution, the Apex Court had directed that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Old Regime shall be deemed to notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the New Regime [i.e., Section 148/148A and other applicable provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021]. The Assessing Officer, in compliance with the aforesaid directions treated the notice issued under Section 148 of the Old Regime as notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the New Regime and passed order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the New Regime was issued by the Assessing Officer Act between July and September, 2022. In the aforesaid background following issues came had up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

The present batch of appeals gives rise to the following issues:

4. In the present case, re-assessment proceedings were initiated under the New Regime. Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as notice under Section 148 were issued under the New Regime. Assessment Year 2015-2016

Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- a. ………………

From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1 April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.

The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

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, mare particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:-

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. (emphasis supplied)

Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1" April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).

In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1" April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5" April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand. penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered. Assessment Year 2015-2016

In light of this order, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the Appeal filed by him before the CIT (Appeals) within a period of 2 weeks from today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason, the present order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside, then the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) will automatically stand revived and the same shall be prosecuted on its own merits and in accordance with law.”

5. Identical view has been taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Venkatal Iyyappa Rajanna [2025] 178 taxmann.com 410 (Karnataka)[05-08-2025]. In that case also the notice under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 were issued under the New Regime after 01/04/2021. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 12618 of 2024 holding as under: “The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12618 of 2024 [TIT] captioned Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna v. Income Tax Officer [NC: 2024 KHC:19107]. 2. The respondent [Assessee] had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 20.03.2022 issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] for the assessment year [AY] 2015-16 on the ground that the said notice did not provide sufficient time for the Assessee to file a response to show cause calling upon him to show cause why it was not a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 3. The learned Single Judge has found merit in the aforesaid contention and accordingly, set aside the impugned notice as well as the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148A (d) of the Act and further reassessment proceedings that were initiated pursuant to the said notice. 4.-6. xx xx Assessment Year 2015-2016

In addition to the above, it is also relevant to note that the impugned notice was issued in respect of AY 2015-2016. Pursuant to the impugned notice, an order dated 31.03.2022 was passed under Section 148(d) of the Act, holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The question, whether such notices issued in respect of the Assessment Year, 20152016 were sustainable was a subject matter of observation by the Supreme Court of India, in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46/2024 INSC 754. During the said proceedings, it was readily conceded by the Revenue that all such notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 in respect of Assessment Year 2015-2016 were liable to be dropped. Paragraph 19 (e) and 19 (f) of the said decision are reproduced below: “e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime …..”

In view of the concession made by the Revenue in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the reassessment proceedings in the present case would also require to be dropped.

It is also relevant to note that in the subsequent decision in Deepak Steel and Power Limited v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025 decided on 02.04.2025, the attention of the Supreme Court was also drawn to the concession made by the Revenue in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The said appeal emanated from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, declining to entertain a batch of petitions. The Supreme Court noted the concession made on behalf of the Revenue and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions, which were filed before the High Court of Orissa. The relevant extract of the said decision of the Supreme Court is set out below:

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."

Similarly, in ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P) Ltd. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.59625 of 2024], the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition arising out of a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in DBC WP No.14414/2022/R.K. Buildcreations (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 475/298 Taxman 166/462 ITR 478 (Rajasthan). It would be equally relevant to refer to the said order passed by the Supreme Court, which is reproduced below:

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the said decisions of the Supreme Court will be applicable in this case as well.

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. We find no grounds to interfere with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge.” (Emphasis Supplied)

6. We note that in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma (Supra) and Venkatal Iyyappa Rajanna (supra), judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) was taken into consideration by the Hon’ble High Courts. In both the aforesaid cases, the Hon’ble High Courts concluded that where notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after 01/04/2021 the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 could not continue in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). It is pertinent to note in both the judgments, it has been recorded that the learned counsel appearing for Revenue had not disputed the aforesaid position.

7. On perusal of the Assessment Order we find that in the present case, the Assessing Officer had information from the Income Tax Insight Portal that the Assessee held time deposit of INR.55,77,960/- and had not filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. Therefore, the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer the Assessee had failed to furnish explanation along with documentary evidence and therefore, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed and notice under Section 148 was issued on 06/04/2022. Therefore, it is admitted position that for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 notice under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Act were issued under the New Regime after 01/04/2021. We have noted hereinabove that in identical set of facts the Juri ictional High Assessment Year 2015-2016

In view of the above, Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed while Ground No. 5 to 10 raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

In result, in terms of paragraph 9 above, the present appeal is allowed.