SATYAJAE SHANBOR GUPTA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1) DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-40, Gumohar Park, Ward-29(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKPPG9804P Assessee by: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Gupta, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.09.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.03.2026 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal against the best judgment Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 11.05.2023 was dismissed.

2 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta agricultural land measuring 13.33 acres, situated at Village- Nagadenahalli, Kasaba Hoblu, Doddaballapur Taluk, Managlore for a consideration of Rs.3.20 crore vide sale deed dated 20.03.2013. Consequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the land was agricultural land and, therefore, not a capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act. He further submitted that the sale consideration was received in subsequent assessment years and that the land was ultimately handed over in 2014. However, the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence establishing the agricultural nature of the land or the original cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer treated the transfer as having taken place in A.Y. 2013- 14, estimated the cost of acquisition at Rs.45,71,428/-, and computed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 91,42,856/-. Accordingly, long-term capital gain of Rs.2,28,57,144/- was added to the assessee's income, resulting in total assessed income of Rs. 2,37,16,454/- u/s 144 r.w.s 147/144B of the Act.

3 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and raising following grounds: “1. That the impugned ex-parte order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice, and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is time barred, invalid and without jurisdiction in view of the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act as amended vide Finance Act, 2021, as the same have been initiated after expiry of 6 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: WP(C) 16232/2024. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition merely for want of further evidence regarding agricultural status of land without examining the material already on record including sale deeds, confirmations and replies filed before the Ld. AO. 3.1 That no adverse inference could have been drawn merely for non-filing of additional evidence when sufficient material was already available on record to examine the nature and source of the impugned receipts. 4. That the assessment framed under Section 144 read with Sections 147 and 144B of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio, inasmuch as the conditions prescribed under Section 144 were not satisfied, as the Appellant had already filed return under Section 139 and non-filing of return pursuant to notice under Section 148 does not attract Section 144(1)(a). 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in reopening on the basis of factually incorrect information. 6. That the reopening under Sections 147/148 is invalid as it is based on vague and incorrect information, without independent application of mind and without providing any information or material suggesting escapement of income. 6.1 That the Ld. AO violated principles of natural justice by relying upon material gathered at the back of the Appellant without furnishing the same or affording opportunity to

4 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta rebut/cross examine contrary to held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)]. 7. That the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the reopening of the assessment was initiated without any tangible material indicating specific information relating to the Appellant that could establish a direct or live nexus with the alleged escapement of income, rendering the reassessment bad in law. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the Ld. AO proceeded on the basis of alleged “reasons to believe” that too from Ld. ITO Ward 32(5) and a request letter regarding permission for inquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act addressed by the Ld. ITO Ward 32(5) to the Ld. PCIT, whereas under the substituted reassessment regime effective from 01.04.2021, the jurisdictional requirement is existence of “information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment” and compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Act, which has not been validly satisfied in the present case. 9. Without prejudice, the reassessment proceedings are invalid since the alleged “reasons to believe by ITO Ward 32(5)” relied upon by the Ld. AO are based on clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147, which stood omitted/non- existent under the substituted reassessment regime brought into effect from 01.04.2021 and, therefore, the very foundation assumed by the Assessing Officer for invoking jurisdiction under Section 147 is legally untenable and void ab initio. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of assessment and the consequent impugned order passed by the Ld. AO is solely on the basis of information from the Ld. ITO Ward 32(5) without any application of mind by the Ld. AO and such reopening on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is not permissible in law. 11. That the reassessment proceedings are vitiated as the notice under Section 148A(b) with reasons attached and final assessment order proceeded on different and inconsistent reasons/additions, with no live nexus between initiation of proceedings and addition made thereby travelling beyond the scope of jurisdiction assumed. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in the absence of providing a copy of valid sanction under section 151 of the Act, the notice issued under section 148 and the consequent assessment order are without authority of law and void ab initio vide Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Tia Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 158 taxmann.com 63 (SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme

5 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta Court in Income-tax Officer v. Tia Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 56). 12.1 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the approval of the competent authority is mechanical, without any application of mind and without perusing the records of the case. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the double addition based on contradictory findings of the Ld. AO that the transaction pertained to AY 2013-14 while taxing the same in AY 2015-16 as well under Section 69A of the Act. 14. That the reopening is without jurisdiction as the Ld. AO wrongly invoked Section 149(1)(b) without satisfying the mandatory conditions prescribed therein. 15. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO failed to conduct any enquiry as mandated under Section 148A(a) of the Act. 16. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in arbitrarily estimating the cost of acquisition of land on the basis of prevailing gold prices between the years 1999 and 2013, despite there being no provision under the Income-tax Act permitting such estimation methodology, and the impugned estimation being purely conjectural, ad hoc and without any supporting material or legal basis, is liable to be deleted. 17. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO was not justified in making an addition of Rs. 2,28,57,144/- in respect of long-term capital gain on sale of agricultural land in total disregard to explanation and documentary evidences placed on record. 18. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has made the impugned addition merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture, surmises and preponderance of probabilities. 19. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 5. We have heard the ld. AR and ld. DR and also examined the record. At the very outset, ld. AR has referred page No. 3 & 4 of the paper book filed before us containing the table for calculation of time barred notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was argued that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev

6 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC). It was therefore argued that since neither AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the notice u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the assessment order be quashed.

7 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta

8 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta section 148A(d) was issued on 17.07.2022, well beyond the permissible limitation.

9 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta u/s 148 having been issued on 17.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation.

“2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in the case of the assessee a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law which is barred by limitation since the provisions of taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) (TOLA) are not applicable for the AY 2015-16 as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. in WP(c) 2558/2023 dated 24.03.2025. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT and Others in Civil Appeal No.5177/2025 dated 02.04.2025 noted that the Revenue made a concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing off the appeal in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) (SCC) Online SC 2693, that for the AY 2015-16 notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA. Ld. Counsel also submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Nehal Rashid Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary No. (S) 57209/2024 dated 4.4.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of these decisions the reassessment framed for the AY 2015-16 based on the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022, is time barred and bad in law. 4. Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly in this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law based on which the reassessment for the AY 2015-16 was framed by the AO on 31.5.2023. The reassessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee. 6. In the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) the Jurisdictional High Court considered whether

10 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta reassessment completed for the AY 2015-16 based on a notice issued u/s 148 and the viz a viz the applicability of the provisions of TOLA and based on the concession of the Revenue that for the AY 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA, held that the notice issued under 148 was beyond the period of limitation and consequently the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others (supra) quashed the notices issued u/s 148 observing as under: - “2. These appeals arise from 'the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2823, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- "1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1 s t December, 2. 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) Mo.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Mo.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023

11 ITA No. 5646/Del/2026 Satyajae Shanbor Gupta and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” 8. Above decisions squarely applies to the fact situation of the assessee and therefore respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the notices issued u/s 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for reopening the assessment for the AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment made based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, the impugned reassessment order having been made pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 the re-assessment order is hereby held to be bad in law and the same is quashed. Ground Nos. B, C & D of grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.” 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Sh. Deepak Agarwal (supra), we are of the opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 17.07.2022 is barred by limitation as having been issued beyond the period specified u/s 149 of the Act. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed.