VIKAS JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 47(1), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4083/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vikas Jain, vs. ITO, Ward 47 (1), C/o Mangalam Consulates, Advocates Delhi. 1205, First Floor, Sector 8, Faridabad - 121 006 (Haryana). (PAN: AHMPJ8000G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Narendra Chillar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.08.2026 Date of Order : 19.08.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 01.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld AR of the assessee raised the legal issue raised vide Ground No.2 that notice dated 25.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act) is barred by limitation.

2 ITA No.4083/DEL/2026

In this regard, he submitted that for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2015-16, the limitation period available to the AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act as per section 149, was expired on 31.03.2022. However, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022. He submitted that thus, the issuance of notice u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 is barred by limitation and consequently, the reassessment proceedings culminating in the order u/s 143(3)/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act are illegal, bad in law and void ab initio, having been initiated beyond the prescribed statutory period and lacking legal sustainability. In this regard, he relied on various judgments and specifically relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The assessee has raised ground no.2 that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation and accordingly, the assessment order so framed u/s 147 of the Act and consequent demands deserves to be quashed. We observed that the matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India &

3 ITA No.4083/DEL/2026

Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal in Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024 reported in 469 ITR 46, wherein it is held that for the assessment year 2015-16, limitation period to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act is upto 31.3.2022 and the Revenue through ASG itself conceded in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal that TOLA provisions are not applicable for AY 2015-16, therefore, all notices issued after 01.04.2021 under un-amended provisions will have to be dropped. In this regard, we further find force from the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT, Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) wherein also it has been held that the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2015-16 are liable to be set aside. 7. Based on the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein it is clearly held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act beyond 31.03.2022 is barred by limitation and thus, following the principles of judicial discipline, we hereby quash the notice so issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 in case of the assessee and also quash the assessment order so framed u/s 143(3)/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated

4 ITA No.4083/DEL/2026

21.05.2023 along with consequent demands being barred by limitation, void- ab-initio and bad in law. 8. Since we have already quashed the entire assessment order by allowing the ground no.2 so raised by the assessee, therefore, the other grounds of appeal so raised by the assessee are not being adjudicated and are left open. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 19.08.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI