NEHA SANJEEV SALKE,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE

There was a delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit reads as under : “3. In my case, assessment order was passed by the AO dated 29/02/2024. Thereafter appeal was filed with the CIT A, NFAC. The CIT A NFAC passed appellate order dated 17th Dec 2025 dismissing my appeal citing reason that no submissions were filed by appellant before him. The due date of filing ITAT appeal against the CIT A's order was 15th Feb 2026. 4. That, after the appellate order under section 250 dated 17.12.2025 was passed, the Appellant, with a view to seek correction of apparent mistake and proper consideration of the material on record, filed a rectification request on 13.01.2026. The Acknowledgement Number of the said application is 228230890120126. 5. Appellant had filed various submissions before the NFAC. However, CIT A stated in the appellate order while dismissing the appeal that appellant did not file any details but sought only adjournment. Due to non-consideration of the submissions, assessee filed rectification application requesting to reconsider the submissions and decide my appeal on merits. 6. However, the CIT A refused to rectify his order and dismissed the rectification application vide his order dated 18th March 2026 citing reason that appellant's submissions were already considered by him while passing the order. Thus, he dismissed my rectification application and did not rectify the order. Again, no tangible reason or explanation was given. 7. That the Appellant was under bona fide belief that the material placed on record by way of written submissions and Paper Book, as well as the subsequent rectification request, would receive due consideration. However, the matter was not decided with due care and consideration of the submissions. The appellant is thus deprived of natural justice despite the compliance. 8. That the Appellant was thus under bonafide belief that the appellate order would be rectified after considering the appellant's submissions and matter will be set aside. 9. The appellant was awaiting favourable order of the NFAC in rectification proceedings. In view of this, the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal could not be filed within the prescribed period, resulting in delay of 62 days.”

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, order u/s 148A(d) of the Act for AY 2015-16 was passed on 12.04.2022. Similarly, notice u/s 148 for AY 2015- 16 was issued on 12.04.2022. The Ld. AR pleaded that the said notice is time barred.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to athree judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), 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 April1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed underthe 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 of2023, 2543 of 2023 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.” Unquote.

Similarly, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“11. 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 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5th 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.” Unquote.

ITAT Visakahapatnam in the case of Bhargav Ram Munagapati Vs. ITO in ITA No.510/VIZ/2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 has held as under : Quote, “13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) and consistently following the view taken in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025, we are of the view that re-assessment proceedings initiated for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the instant case are without jurisdiction and hence assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act consequent to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Since the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee by quashing the re- assessment order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Unquote.

Similar view has taken by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No.2881/PUN/2024 wherein, notice u/s.148 dated 18.07.2022 was quashed by ITAT. Similar view has been taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sagar Bharat Alhat Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2790/PUN/2025, order dated 18.06.2026, Vivek Prasad Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2573/PUN/2025, order dated 29.06.2026 and Mangala Dilip Shewale Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2504/PUN/2025, order dated 08.06.2026.

In this case, the assessee is an individual and house wife. The assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2015-16 as the assessee was not having any taxable income being house wife. The word house wife is used by the assessee in her written submission, therefore, we are using that word. As per order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 12.04.2022, the Assessing Officer had received information on INSIGHT Portal of the Income Tax Department regarding purchase of immovable property by the assessee. The said information appearing in the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is scanned and reproduced here as under :

The assessee could not file any reply during the proceedings u/s 148A. Therefore, the AO concluded that there is an escapement of income of Rs.62,02,000/- for AY 2015-16 in the form of asset and accordingly in the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, the AO held that it was a fit case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The said order u/s 148A(d) was approved by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune on 12.04.2022. Accordingly, assessment proceedings were initiated for AY 2015- 16. The AO passed ex-parte order u/s 144 for AY 2015-16 determining the total income of Rs.62,02,000/-. Aggrieved by

On perusal of the submission filed by the assessee, it is observed that the assessee vide Agreement dated 23.06.2014 has purchased a flat with her husband Dr. Sanjeev Bhaskar Salke for a total consideration of Rs.59,02,000/-. Copy of the Agreement is at page Nos. 1 to 55 of the paper book. Thus, it is evident from the Agreement that the assessee Mrs. Neha Sanjeev Salke had purchased a flat along with her husband Dr. Sanjeev Bhaskar Salke. In the Agreement Dr. Sanjeev Bhaskar Salke‟s name appears first followed by Mrs. Neha Sanjeev Salke. Thus, the flat was purchased jointly with her husband. On

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.