VIJAY MANIKRAO GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. PR. CIT CIRCLE 7, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1237, 1236 & 1235/PUN/2025 Assessment years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vijay Manikrao Gaikwad Pr.CIT, Circle-7, Pune Hissa No.901, Shree Balaji, Pune Solapur Road, Vs. Kadamwak Wast, Haveli, Pune – 412201 PAN: AEHPG8143F (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte : Ms Bhavya I.V., Jt.CIT Department by : 23-06-2026 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 16-09-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM: The above 3 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 12.03.2025, 12.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), relating to assessment years (“AYs”) 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.1237/PUN/2025 (AY 2014-15) 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of goods transport agency by road. He filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 25.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,60,94,529/-. Information was available with the Department that during

2 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 the financial year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15, the assessee has made cash deposit and received credit entries amounting to Rs.91,38,400/- in the bank account maintained with IDBI bank in the name of his employee, Shri Mahesh Rohidas Chendage. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 23.06.2021. Thereafter, in pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64, another notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24.05.2022 and two weeks’ time i.e. upto 07.06.2022 was granted to the assessee to file his reply to the said notice. However, no reply was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed order u/s 148A(d) on 19.07.2022 and a fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the said notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee which also remained un-complied with. In absence of any reply furnished by the assessee, the Ld.AO completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,52,32,929/- thereby making addition on account of the cash deposit of Rs.91,38,400/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dt.19.05.2023. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the findings of the Ld.AO and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to lack of documentary evidence furnished by the assessee in support of his claim without admitting the additional/fresh evidence filed by the assessee as per the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

3 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the lower authorities have erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by initially issuing notice u/s 148 dated 23/06/2021 and subsequently reissuing fresh notice u/s 148A(b) dated 24/05/2022 followed by order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 dated 19/07/2022 for the reasons that these notices are time barred in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 167 Taxmann com 70 (SC)[2024] and therefore entire proceedings are bad in law and consequential order needs to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and consequential order passed u/s 147 are bad in law as the notice u/s 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-JAO and the assessment order is completed by Faceless Assessing Officer-FAO, which is not permitted as per provisions of section 151A and therefore entire proceeding are void-ab- initio and therefore consequential order are bad in law Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit, 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the lower authorities have erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.91,38,400/- on account of unexplained money as per provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, without appreciating the nature of appellant's business and by disregarding appellant's submissions made in this regard and also erred in rejecting the additional evidence brought before Ld. CIT(A) as per rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider such evidence which goes to the roots of issue. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of principle of natural justice. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has raised two legal grounds first time before the Tribunal which were not raised before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. In Ground No.1 before the Tribunal, the assessee has challenged the validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings on the ground that the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is time barred. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee challenges the issue of notice u/s. 148 by JAO and completion of assessment by FAO which is not permitted as per the provisions of section 151A of the Act and hence, renders entire re-assessment proceedings void ab initio. He however, submitted that the second ground (Ground No.2) is not being pressed

4 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 and hence, the same may be dismissed as such. He accordingly prayed for the admission of first ground i.e. ground No. 1 contending that the same goes to the root of the matter and does not require examination/verification of any fresh/additional facts and evidences. Moreover, the impugned issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision(s) of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and other High Courts as well as various Co-ordinate Bench(es) of the Tribunal. In light of these submissions of the Ld.AR, we deem it fit to admit the legal ground No.1 and proceed to decide the same. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 569 ITR 46 (SC) drew the attention of the Bench to the same and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the notice u/s 148 under the new regime has to be issued within the surviving time period and any notice thereafter shall be time barred and therefore, it would be illegal. In the present case, since the fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 19.07.2022 which could have been issued only within the surviving time limit i.e. upto 14.06.2022, and therefore the same is time barred. He accordingly submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it has been very specifically and precisely held that the notice issued u/s 148 under the new tax regime after the cut-off date as calculated in the manner prescribed therein, shall be time barred and therefore, invalid. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the Ld. AO has followed due procedure of law for issue of notice u/s 148 which is not barred by limitation and therefore, the re-assessment proceedings are not invalid.

5 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025

6 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 Surviving time limit to issue fresh notice u/s 148 14.06.2022 Fresh notice issued u/s 148 19.07.2022 Whether time barred? Yes 10. From the perusal of the above chart, it is abundantly clear that the Ld.AO could have issued fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act by 14.06.2022, however, the same has been issued on 19.07.2022 which is beyond the surviving time limit as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and also followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of GurpreetSingh vs. DCIT (supra). 11. We find that an identical issue had also come up before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Madhukar Chandrakant Survase vs. ACIT in C.O.Nos. 37 & 38/PUN/2024 (in ITA Nos. 2114 & 2118/PUN/2024), order dt. 14.07.2026 for AY. 2017-18 wherein the Tribunal held the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. 26.07.2022 as time barred since it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and hence, quashed the re-assessment proceedings. The relevant observation and finding of the Tribunal is reproduced below: “14. The assessee has raised the following additional ground in cross objection :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 26th July 2022 for assessment year 2017-2018 issued by the assessing officer is time barred after taking into account the "Surviving Period" for the reassessment notices issued between 1" April 2021 to 30th June 2021 and hence the reassessment notice as well as the consequential reassessment order passed may be quashed and set aside." 15. With regard to above additional ground raised by the assessee in his cross objection, we find that it is purely a legal issue and the relevant facts are already on record, therefore, we admit the same and proceed to adjudicate this additional ground first. 16. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of the assessee that the fresh notice issued on 26.07.2022 u/s 148 of the IT Act is time barred since issued beyond the surviving time period as described by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) which was also followed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 673 (GOA) wherein it was held that the impugned notice issued

7 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 u/s 148 of the IT Act is invalid and bad in law being issued beyond surviving time period by observing as under :- "15. In terms of the decisions in Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), the following position emerges in the context of the present case:- (i) The period for subject reassessment in terms of Section 149 of the old regime is deemed to be extended till 30/06/2021 under the TOLA. (ii) The notice dated 29/06/2021 would be deemed to be notice under Section 148A(b). (iii) The surviving period by excluding the date of re-issuance of notice on 29/06/2021 would be the remainder days in the month of June 2021 (30/06/2021- 28/06/2021), namely, two days. (iv) On 30/06/2021, the extension in terms of the TOLA would come to an end. (v) The period that stands excluded is: (a) The period up to 30/06/2021, which is covered by the provisions of the IT Act read with the TOLA. (b) The period from 01/07/2021 to 03/05/2022 being the period before the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra). (c) The Period from 04/05/2022 till 20/05/2022, which is the date when the material was furnished and the reasons for reopening were given to the Petitioner. (d) The period of two weeks time for reply to be filed by the Petitioner, which ended on 04/06/2022 and the extended time to file reply (additional reply was filed by the Petitioner on 28/06/2022). Further extension was given to the Petitioner in pursuance to notice dated 14/07/2021 giving additional time of one week in view of change in the incumbent to the Office, which period ended on 21/07/2022. 16. By considering all the exclusions, the remainder days for conclusion of the procedure for passing of an order in terms of Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148 would be two days from 21/07/2022 and the same would expire of 23/07/2022. Applying the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the context of the 1" proviso to Section 149 we are therefore of the opinion that the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 is time barred. The order under Section 148A(d) as well as the notice issued under Section 148 are dated 29/07/2022 which is much after the surviving period which expired on 21/07/2022. 17. In light of the above, the contentions raised by the Revenue lack foundation in terms of law. Although the Revenue has contended that the order dated 29/07/2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 were within the timelines contemplated by the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), the same lacks substance. In the written synopsis, an attempt was made to justify the timelines by contending that in terms of Section 148A(d), the period mandated for passing of the order was within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to is received or where no such reply is furnished within one month from the end of the time by which the extended time allowed to furnish reply as per clause (b) expired. Relying on the said provision it was contended that the replies are dated 03/06/2022 and

8 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 28/06/2022 and going by the same, the end of the month would be 30/06/2022. Hence the expiry of time would be on 31/07/2022. It is therefore contended that the order is passed within the one month time contemplated under Section 148A(d). 18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the IT Act. The entire process under Section 148A(a) to (d) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 has to be completed within the total time available in terms of Section 149(1) of the IT Act for issuance of notice under Section 148. A notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act which is beyond the time line stipulated under Section 149(1) is non-complaint and invalid. The timeline under Section 148A(d) is for the Assessing Officer to comply with the stipulations and the streamlining contemplated under Section 1484. This is primarily to bring in transparency and accountability into the system and is intended for the benefit of the assessees. However to suggest that Section 148A(d) extends the time limit under Section 149(1) and/or has a bearing on the time under Section 149(1) is a submission which is misconceived and lacks legal sanctity. 19. It was urged by the Revenue that the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the Court could consider awaiting its outcome. The decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited has not been stayed. Since we have proceeded on the basis of the law laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rejeev Bansal (supra), this contention cannot be accepted. Reference to various decisions has been made. In fact, the decisions referred to are inconsistent with the case set up by the Respondents. Except for the decision in Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya (supra), other judgments are rendered prior to the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and/or do not consider the said decision. Hence the said judgments do not in any manner assist us in deciding the controversy in issue especially in the context to the limited issue that is raised by the Petitioner herein. 20. At this point we deem it appropriate to note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi)/2025 SCC OnLine Del 481 dealt with an identical issue. It considered the principles laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) and concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 under the IT Act was time barred. In the facts of that case as well, the AY was 2013-2014 and the notice under Section 148 issued to the assessee was dated 01/06/2021. The date of furnishing material to the Petitioner in that case was 30/05/2022. The said Petitioner furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act on 13/06/2022. In this factual backdrop, the Delhi High Court applying the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) came to the conclusion that the remainder period with the Assessment Officer was twenty-nine days from 01/06/2021 when the reassessment proceedings commenced for issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The limitation for passing of the order under Section 148A(d) expired on 12/07/2022. Accordingly, the notice under Section 148A of the IT Act issued on 30/07/2022 was held to be beyond limitation and the same was quashed. The Delhi High Court also relied on the observations made in the case of Raminder Singh v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 148/[2024] 461 ITR 368 (Delhi)/2023 DHC 6672-DB wherein it was held that one month from the end of the month in which the time available to the assessee to respond

9 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 to the notice under clause (b) of Section 1484 expires is available to the Assessment Officer to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act. It was further held that notice under Section 148 of the IT Act that is not accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act would be non-compliant with the IT Act and no such notice could be issued beyond the period as specified under Section 149(1) of the IT Act. This decision of the Delhi High Court is consistent with our view based on the interpretation of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra). 21. For all these reasons, we hold that the notice dated 29/07/2022, issued by Respondent no.1 under Section 148 of the IT Act is beyond the time period specified under Section 149(1) of the IT Act. It is therefore quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 29/05/2023 passed on the basis of the impugned notice also stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs." 17. Respectfully following the above judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), we are of the considered opinion that if the original notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 by taking the benefit of TOLA and fresh notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued beyond the surviving time period, it is required to be declared as invalid and bad in law. Accordingly, now in the light of above judgement (supra), we proceed to verify that whether the impugned fresh notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 26.07.2022 was issued within the surviving time period or beyond the surviving time period. In order to compute the surviving/balance time as per the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), it is relevant to note the following dates: -

10 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 already allowed the cross objection on additional ground, the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic hence not adjudicated. 20. In the result, the Cross Objection no.38/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 filed by the assessee is allowed.” 12. We also find that the identical issue has been considered in the case of Venkagouda Krishnagouda Patil vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department in ITA No. 376/PUN/2025 (AY.2017-18), dt. 03-09-2026, wherein it was held as under: “6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee has raised various grounds including that the reopening notice dated 30.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act was bad in law and illegal hence the consequential reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 7. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order dated 15.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is null and void since the notice dated 30-07-2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act is time barred being issued beyond the surviving period of limitation prescribed/approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). In this regard, we find that in the case of Rejeev Bansal (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that 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 30.06.2021. In this regard, we find that the details w.r.t. surviving period calculation, post SC decision in case of Rajiv Bansal is as follows :- i. Original 148 Notice which is Deemed Notice u/s 148A(b) - 16.06.2021 ii. Extended time allowed as per TOLA upto - 30.06.2021 iii. Surviving time limit available - 14 days iv. Notice given u/s 148A(b) - 23.05.2022 v. Two weeks time granted to respond - 08.06.2022 vi. Add surviving time limit, if any, - 14 days i.e. upto 22.06.2022 vii. Order passed u/s 148A(d) - 29.07.2022 viii. Fresh notice issued u/s 148 - 30.07.2022 8. From the above details, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer could have issued fresh notice u/s 148 of the IT Act only upto 22.06.2022, however the impugned notice was issued on 30-07-2022 which is apparently beyond the surviving time limit calculation as provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). In this regard, we also find support from judgement passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT & Others order dated 08.05.2025 wherein under identical facts the Writ Petition filed by the assessee was allowed since the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act was held to be time barred being issued beyond surviving time limit by observing as under :-

11 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 “6. Although multiple grounds as mentioned above have been raised in the writ petition, the learned Advocate for Petitioner has limited his challenge to the point that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 was time barred in view of the first proviso to substituted Section 149 as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra). Reliance is also placed on the Delhi High Court judgement in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi) /2025 SCC OnLine Del 481 to contend that on identical facts and consistent with the interpretation of the Petitioner in the instant case, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were quashed. It is urged that the remainder period as per the ratio of the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) was only 2 days and that the period of 2 days expired on 23/07/2022. This conclusion could be drawn after considering all the exclusions contemplated under 3rd proviso to substituted Section 149 and the exclusions directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as interpreted in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The notice dated 29/07/2022 was thus liable to be quashed. 7. The respondents have canvassed oral arguments and have filed a synopsis of arguments based on the petitioner's submissions. According to the Respondents and as indicated in the written synopsis : (i) The assessment re-opened is valid within the meaning of the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act. Hence, the further proceedings are valid as the same are initiated within the time limitation as notified under the TOLA extending the time limit till 30/06/2021 for re-opening the assessment vide Notification No.38/2021/ F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL. (ii) That the Government of India notified the TOLA on 29/09/2020. That in view of the TOLA, any notices and orders or compliances for which the due date falls until 31/12/2020 were extended to 31/03/2021, and further thereafter again the same was extended till 30.6.2021. (iii) That the Central Board of Direct Taxes - CBDT Notification under the TOLA dated 31/12/2020 extended the time limit from 31/12/2020 to 31/03/2021. The CBDT's Notification dated 31/03/2021 extended the date from 31/03/2021 to 30/04/2021. Subsequently, again, CBDT's Notification dated 27/4/2021 extended the time barred period from 30/04/2021 to 30/06/2021. (iv) That the time limit to re-open the proceedings in the present case within the meaning of Section 147 had been extended to 30/06/2021 and that the first notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated 29/06/2021 was issued within the extended statutory time limit. The notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the petitioner on 20/05/2022, the objections raised by the petitioner were also disposed of by passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act on 29/07/2022 which was within the permissible time limit. (v) That accordingly, the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued after getting prior approval from the Competent Authority. There was no violation of any legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner. Reassessment proceedings were well within the statutory time limit and were not time-barred in view of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the IT Act, which was made applicable from 01/04/2021.

12 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 (vi) That the time limit to re-open the proceedings in the present case within the meaning of Section 147 had been extended to 30/06/2021. The first notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was dated 29/06/2021and that the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with 144B of the IT Act was passed under the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 where the assessment was done on automated allocation. Hence, the aspect of absence of jurisdiction was without substance. (vii) The order dated 29/07/2022 was passed within the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) in as much as the first reply was uploaded on 03/06/2022 and the additional reply was uploaded on 28/06/2022. Going by the mandate of Section 148A(d) which contemplates that an order under Section 148A(d) was to be passed within one month from date of compliance from notice under Section 148A(b), the limitation would be till 31/07/2022. It is contended that the end of the month for compliance in respect of notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act would be 30/06/2022 as the replies were dated 03/06/2022 and 28/06/2022. The period of one month had to be counted from 30/06/2022, which would fall on 30/07/2022. (viii) The Learned counsel for the Respondents has referred to judgments in :- (a) Ashish Agarwal (supra); (b) Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 147 taxmann.com 549/453 ITR 153 (Allahabad); (c) Virendra Ship Recyclers LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 588 (Bombay) (d) Income-tax Officer v. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya [2024] 168 taxmann.com 588/[2025] 302 Taxman 183 (SC); (e) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. [2025] 170 taxmann.com 589/303 Taxman 333 (SC); (f) Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya v. ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 656 (Gujarat) (g) Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 147 taxmann.com 585/453 ITR 51 (Gujarat); (h) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 367 (Bombay); (i) Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 160 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay) . 8. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that although reference is made to the above judgments at para 17 of the written synopsis, the following is stated: i. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed the re-opening notices for the AYs 2013-14 and other years as time barred under the Amended provisions of the IT Act (as amended from 1-42021).

13 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 ii. The decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd (supra) for AY 2013-14 which was followed in Virendra Ship Recyclers and Sanman Impex Ltd. (supra) were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court based on Rajeev Bansal (supra). iii. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya (supra) for AY 2013-14 was also set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court based on Rajeev Bansal's (supra). iv. The decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) which was followed in Hexaware Technologies (supra) for the same AYs 2013-14 by this Court quashing the re-opening notices on this and other grounds were now subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Hexaware Technologies Ltd. [SLP (C) No. 21188 of 2024]. 9. In view of the controversy involved, it is necessary to refer to the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra). Since the decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has been considered in Rajeev Bansal (supra), it would be advantageous to refer to its observations in this regard in paragraphs 106 and 107. It held as under :- "106............. To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, (2023) 1 SCC 617 is that the showcause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 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 assessees to respond to the show-cause notices. 107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assessees 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 Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, this Court provided two weeks to the assessees 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 showcause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the Assessing Offices to the assessees in terms of the directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal ; and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices. " 10. It further held in paragraphs 108, 111 and 113 as under :- "108........... Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal is that the time surviving under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 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

14 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and June 30, 2021. 111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assessee to the show-causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the Assessing Officer had to perform the following responsibilities : (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the Assessing Officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was available to the Assessing Officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. 113...........Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred.” 11. Thus, the effect of the judgment in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that whilst upholding the contention of the assesses that from 01/04/2021, the new regime applied and the issuance of notices under the old regime were contrary to law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed that notices issued under Section 148 of the old regime be construed as notices under Section 148A(b) of the new regime and the enquiry contemplated under Section 148A(a) was done away with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were directed to provide the information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within a period of thirty days to enable the assesses to respond to the notice within a period of two weeks after which Assessing Officer had to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the IT Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly observed that all defenses available under Section 149(a) of the IT Act would continue to be available to all the assessees. However, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not delve into the aspect whether reassessment notices were within the time stipulated under the IT Act read with TOLA and the Notifications issued thereunder. 12. The decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was extensively considered by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The ratio laid down in the said judgment is pivotal to the issues involved in the present case and both parties have been extensively heard on the implications of the said judgment on the case in hand. In fact, the Petitioner has conceded his case stands or falls on the basis of the interpretation on the issue whether the reassessment notices issued are time barred under the applicable provisions of the IT Act. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) concluded as under: a. After 01/04/2021, the IT Act has to be read along with substituted provisions, b. TOLA would continue to apply to the IT Act after 01/04/2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the IT Act falls for completion between 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021;

15 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 c. Section 3(1) of the TOLA overrides Section 149 of the IT Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148; d. The TOLA would extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether the TOLA would apply to Section 151 of the new regime is that: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20/3/2020 and 31/03/2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(1) has extended time till 30/06/2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31/03/2021 to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) would extend to all the reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1/4/2021 and 30/06/2021; g. The time during which the show-cause notices were deemed to be stayed would be from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 01/04/2021 and 30/06/2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to the assessees in terms of the directions issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices, and h. The Assessing Officer was required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the IT Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period would be time barred and liable to be set aside. 14. As stated earlier, the instant case is premised on ratio laid down in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and the applicability of the principles laid down to the facts of the present case. The sequence of events in the case in hand is as under :

16 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025

17 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 16. By considering all the exclusions, the remainder days for conclusion of the procedure for passing of an order in terms of Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148 would be two days from 21/07/2022 and the same would expire of 23/07/2022. Applying the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the context of the 1st proviso to Section 149 we are therefore of the opinion that the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 is time barred. The order under Section 148A(d) as well as the notice issued under Section 148 are dated 29/07/2022 which is much after the surviving period which expired on 21/07/2022. 17. In light of the above, the contentions raised by the Revenue lack foundation in terms of law. Although the Revenue has contended that the order dated 29/07/2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 were within the timelines contemplated by the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), the same lacks substance. In the written synopsis, an attempt was made to justify the timelines by contending that in terms of Section 148A(d), the period mandated for passing of the order was within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to is received or where no such reply is furnished within one month from the end of the time by which the extended time allowed to furnish reply as per clause (b) expired. Relying on the said provision it was contended that the replies are dated 03/06/2022 and 28/06/2022 and going by the same, the end of the month would be 30/06/2022. Hence the expiry of time would be on 31/07/2022. It is therefore contended that the order is passed within the one-month time contemplated under Section 148A(d). 18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the IT Act. The entire process under Section 148A(a) to (d) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 has to be completed within the total time available in terms of Section 149(1) of the IT Act for issuance of notice under Section 148. A notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act which is beyond the time line stipulated under Section 149(1) is noncompliant and invalid. The timeline under Section 148A(d) is for the Assessing Officer to comply with the stipulations and the streamlining contemplated under Section 148A. This is primarily to bring in transparency and accountability into the system and is intended for the benefit of the assessee. However, to suggest that Section 148A(d) extends the time limit under Section 149(1) and/or has a bearing on the time under Section 149(1) is a submission which is misconceived and lacks legal sanctity. 19. It was urged by the Revenue that the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the Court could consider awaiting its outcome. The decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited has not been stayed. Since we have proceeded on the basis of the law laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rejeev Bansal (supra), this contention cannot be accepted. Reference to various decisions has been made. In fact, the decisions referred to are inconsistent with the case set up by the Respondents. Except for the decision in Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya (supra), other judgments are rendered prior to the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and /or do not consider the said decision. Hence the said judgments do not in any manner

18 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 assist us in deciding the controversy in issue especially in the context to the limited issue that is raised by the Petitioner herein. 20. At this point we deem it appropriate to note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi) /2025 SCC OnLine Del 481 dealt with an identical issue. It considered the principles laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) and concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 under the IT Act was time barred. In the facts of that case as well, the AY was 2013-2014 and the notice under Section 148 issued to the assessee was dated 01/06/2021. The date of furnishing material to the Petitioner in that case was 30/05/2022. The said Petitioner furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act on 13/06/2022. In this factual backdrop, the Delhi High Court applying the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) came to the conclusion that the remainder period with the Assessment Officer was twenty-nine days from 01/06/2021 when the reassessment proceedings commenced for issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The limitation for passing of the order under Section 148A(d) expired on 12/07/2022. Accordingly, the notice under Section 148A of the IT Act issued on 30/07/2022 was held to be beyond limitation and the same was quashed. The Delhi High Court also relied on the observations made in the case of Raminder Singh v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 148/[2024] 461 ITR 368 (Delhi) /2023 DHC 6672-DB wherein it was held that one month from the end of the month in which the time available to the assessee to respond to the notice under clause (b) of Section 148A expires is available to the Assessment Officer to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act. It was further held that notice under Section 148 of the IT Act that is not accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act would be non-compliant with the IT Act and no such notice could be issued beyond the period as specified under Section 149(1) of the IT Act. This decision of the Delhi High Court is consistent with our view based on the interpretation of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra). 21. For all these reasons, we hold that the notice dated 29/07/2022, issued by Respondent no.1 under Section 148 of the IT Act is beyond the time period specified under Section 149(1) of the IT Act. It is therefore quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 29/05/2023 passed on the basis of the impugned notice also stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.” 9. Respectfully following the above judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 176 taxmann.com 673 (GOA) [08-05-2025], we are of the considered opinion that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act is barred by limitation period since being issued beyond surviving time period as prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and accordingly, we declare the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act as void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order dated 15.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act are also quashed. Thus, the ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the reassessment order by allowing the ground no.2 raised by the assessee, the remaining grounds become academic, hence not adjudicated by us. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 10.

19 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 13. Also, the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in the cross appeals in the case of M/s. Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Parboiling Plant vs. ITO (ITA Nos.307 & 350/RPR/2024), order dated 05.02.2025 for AY. 2014-15, after considering the arguments advanced by the assessee and relying on various decisions, has quashed the re-assessment proceedings being barred by limitation by observing as under: “23. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties. Admittedly, the following facts are discernible from the record: - ● Notice u/s. 148 of the Act under the old regime (deemed notice u/s. 148A) was issued by the A.O to the assessee firm on 30.06.2021; ● show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued by the A.O to the assessee firm on 25.05.2022; ● the time period of two weeks (14 days) from the date of issuing of notice u/s. 148A(b) dated 25.05.2022 [as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal (supra)] lapsed on 07.06.2022; ● the balance/surviving period available with the A.O to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act (under new regime) was 1 day [time between 30.06.2021 (the date of issuance of notice u/s.148A of the Act) AND 30.06.2021 i.e. (extended time period under TOLA, 2020); ● as the balance/surviving period available with the A.O for passing an order under clause (d) of 148A of the Act was 1 day i.e. less than 7 days, therefore, as per the “fourth proviso” to Section 148A of the Act, the period of limitation so available would stand extended to 7 days; ● the A.O could have validly issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act (under the new regime) latest by 13.06.2022; 24. As the A.O in the present case had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 i.e. much subsequent to lapse of the period of limitation as was available with him upto 13.06.2022, therefore, as stated by the Ld. AR (subject to correction of the date by the Ld. AR as 16.06.2022), and rightly so, the same is found to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.04.2013 in absence of a valid notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and, is quashed. 25. As we have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and dealing with the other contentions, based on which, the impugned addition has been assailed before us which, thus, are left open.”

20 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 14. Thus, based on the factual matrix of the instant case and the legal position set out above, and respectfully following the decisions (supra) involving similar set of facts as that of the assessee in the present case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Ld. DR, we quash the re- assessment proceedings as the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. We hold and order accordingly. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. Ground No. 2 is dismissed as ‘not pressed’. Since we have already allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee, ground No. 3 challenging the addition on merit is not adjudicated. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.1236/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 16. Both the sides have unanimously submitted that the facts involved in the present appeal are identical to the facts narrated above in ITA No.1237/PUN/2025 for AY 2014-15. After hearing both the sides, we find that the grounds raised in this appeal are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1237/PUN/2025 for AY 2014-15. We find that the Ld. AO has made the addition of Rs. 1,16,22,236 on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the similar reasons which we have already reproduced above for AY 2014-15. In the present appeal also the legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is raised for the first time before the Tribunal which we hereby admit for the similar reasoning for AY 2014-15. 17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that for AY 2015-16 no original/deemed notice u/s 148 was issued in this case. The notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 25.05.2022. In response thereto, the assessee did

21 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 not furnish his reply. He submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act could have been issued till 31.03.2022 by the Ld. AO as TOLA is not applicable in the instant case. However, the notice u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19.07.2022 which is in violation of the time limit prescribed by the first proviso to section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is a time barred notice and the consequential assessment order deserves to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the contention of the Ld. AR. We find that the impugned issue is no more res-integra and has been decided in favor of the assessee by catena of decisions of the various judicial forums. We therefore find force in the argument advanced by the Ld. AR and hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act is an invalid notice being barred by limitation and accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. The other legal ground i.e. ground no. 1 involving JAO/FAO issue is not pressed by the Ld. AR and hence dismissed as ‘not pressed’. Since we have already decided the legal ground no. 2 in favor of the assessee and accordingly the reassessment proceedings stand quashed, and therefore the ground no. 3 challenging the impugned addition on merit need not be adjudicated. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.1235/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 19. Both the sides have unanimously submitted that the facts involved in the present appeal are identical to the facts narrated above in ITA No.1237/PUN/2025 for AY 2014-15. After hearing both the sides, we find on merit, the assessee has challenged the impugned addition of Rs. 23,34,880 on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on the similar ground raised in ITA No.1237 & 1236/PUN/2025 for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. The

22 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 assessee has also raised two additional legal grounds (Ground no. 1 and 2) for the first time before the Tribunal wherein the assessment proceedings/order is challenged on JAO/FAO issue and DIN issue. However, these grounds are not pressed by the Ld. AR and hence both the grounds no.1 and ground no. 2 are dismissed as ‘not pressed’. 20. Now coming to ground no.3, we find that the Ld. AO in absence of any reply furnished by the assessee to various notices issued by him, in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B treated the cash deposit made by the assessee during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17 in its bank account maintained with IDBI bank in the name of his employee, Sh. Mahesh Rohidas Chendage, as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs.23,34,880/- to the total income of the assessee. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,03,28,480/- for AY 2016-17. We find that the impugned addition of Rs. 23,34,880 made by the Ld. AO has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the similar reasons which we have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs in ITA No. 1237/PUN/2025 for AY 2014-15. 21. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not appreciated the assessee’s nature of business and the submissions made by the assessee in this regard in correct perspective. He has further submitted that the assessee had filed certain details/documents before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the shape of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without considering the same, has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. He accordingly requested that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO / CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. DR on the other

23 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 hand supported the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC and submitted that the impugned addition should be confirmed. In our view, since the additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC by the assessee goes to the root of the matter and therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the issue as per fact and law in light of the addition evidence already on record and such further details/ submissions made by the assessee to substantiate his case after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The effective ground (i.e. ground no. 3) raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In the nutshell, the appeal(s) filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16-09-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 16-09-2026 GCVSR / TNMM/Sujeet Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.09.16 16:54:34 +05'30'

24 ITA Nos.1235, 1236 & 1237/PUN/2025 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The Respondent 2. 3. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune