ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 43 (6), DELHI

ITA No.5870/DEL/2026 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5870/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, B-64/2, Wazir Pur-III, Industrial Area, Income Tax Office, North West Delhi, Delhi 110052. Ward 43(6), PAN No. AAKPJ4053C Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Suraj Prashad, CA Revenue by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18.08.2026 Pronouncement on 18.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 09.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO was in position of information that immovable property had been sold without there being any capital gains offered to tax. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act were initiated. Before the Ld. AO the assessee contended that the said property was not sold in this year but actually in FY 2006-07. The Ld. AO disbelieved the contention of the assessee and noted that the sale deed was executed on 04.02.2013, that is within the year under consideration. Thereafter, long term capital gain was computed at Rs.138,97,489/-.

ITA No.5870/DEL/2026 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the basis of findings given on pages 14 to 17 of the impugned order. It is noteworthy that the challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction has also been disposed of in a rather cryptic manner on page 16 of the impugned order.

1.3 The assessee has now approached the ITAT with 18 grounds some of which challenge that the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act were barred by limitation.

“Ground No.03: Assessment u/s 147 is invalid since the Notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation 2. The present appeal pertains to AY 2013-14, whereby the original notice issued on 28.06.2021 and post Ashish Aggarwal, the fresh notice u/s 148 was issued on 21.07.2022. 3. The issue in the present appeal on limitation is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 469 ITR 46. This judgment is being followed by the Jurisdictional Delhi High Court Consistently. 4. The computation of the limitation period as per the judgment of Rajeev Bansal (supra) is elaborated below: S.No. Particulars Particulars SC Paras1 1. Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Period of limitation u/s 149 6 years (3 years or 6 years) 3. Original Period of limitation 31.03.2020 u/s 149 4. Extended period of 30.06.2021 Paras 65-69 limitation as per IT Act read with TOLA 2

ITA No.5870/DEL/2026 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 5. Date of original notice u/s 28.06.2021 148 – deemed SCN u/s 148A(b) 6. Time surviving from date of 2 days Paras 109- issuance of deemed SCN till 113 expiry of period as extended by TOLA [from 28.06.2021 till 30.06.2021] 7. Period of deemed stay to be 28.06.2021 Paras 105- excluded as per 3rd proviso To 107 to section 149 [Date of 01.06.2022 Original 148 till extended time allowed to file reply to assessee] 8. Last date for issuing notice 03.06.2022 Paras 111– u/s 148 [01.06.2022 + 2 113 days] 9. Actual date of issuance of 21.07.2022 notice u/s 148 10. Notice u/s 148 issued under Para 111- new regime is barred by 113 limitation 5. On going through the computation, it may be noted that in the present case, the impugned Assessment Year is AY 2013-14 and Notice u/s 148 has been issued on 28.06.2021. Thereafter, pursuant to SC judgment in the case of Ashish Agarwal, the Ld. AO issued 148A(b) Notice on 18.05.2022 requiring the assessee to file reply by 01.06.2022. the assessee filed its reply on 01.06.2022. However, the order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 has been passed/issued on 20.07.2022/21.07.2022, which is beyond the “surviving period” as explained by SC in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 469 ITR 46. Thus, the Notice u/s 148 dated 21.07.2022 is barred by limitation and consequent all the proceedings are liable to be quashed.” 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

this issue is covered in favour of the assessee through the Hon’ble Apex

Court’s judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46

(SC). For the sake of brevity, the sequence of dates extracted (supra)

are not mentioned any further. Suffice it to say, that the notice for this

particular year could have been issued only up to 03.06.2022, whereas

the same was issued on 21.07.2022. We can do no better than to follow

ITA No.5870/DEL/2026 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN the directive given in the Rajeev Bansal case (supra) to decide the issue in favour of the assessee:

“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 u/s 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 TOLA, was available to the Assessing Officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1st Mary 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1st May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the Assessing Officer will have sixty-one days [date between 1 My 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits that response on 18 June 2022, the Assessing Officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assessee to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an Assessing Officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 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 TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred.”

ITA No.5870/DEL/2026 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 3.1 In the light of discussion above, it deserves to be held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 21.07.2022 is barred by limitation and therefore the consequential assessment proceedings deserve to be quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 15.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI