AMIT JAIN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

आदेश / ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 on 21.04.2026 emanating from assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26.05.2023.

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain

Finding and Analysis:

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain (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 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

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain 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 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 148A. 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.

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain 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.” Unquote.

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain 6. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Agrwal vs ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 656 (Delhi)[09- 10-2025]. ITAT Raipur in the case of ITO vs Vigneshwara Ispat Pvt Ltd ITA 343/RPR/2025 has held as under : Quote, “ 5. The reopening of the assessment for A.Y.2014-15 u/s. 148 of the Act was challenged by the assessee regarding applicability and validity of such reopening initiated through notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 30.06.2021 based on the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agrawal (supra) reissued on 26.07.2022. It was the contention of the assessee that such issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act was time barred as per provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain various grounds. The assessee had filed both grounds on merits as well as legal grounds before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as per decisions analyzing aforesaid provided relief to the assessee setting aside the assessment on the legal ground itself. It has been correctly held by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that by the time the A.O had issued notice on 26.07.2022, the limitation period has already expired. The A.O had no remaining time to issue the notice u/s. 148 of the Act or pass an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The said notice dated 26.07.2022 was therefore issued beyond the permissible limitation period. Subsequently, the assessment order dated 24.05.2023 framed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was set aside, appeal of the assessee was allowed and the impugned notice dated 26.07.2022, the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act and the assessment order dated 24.05.2023 was set aside.

ITA No. 550/RPR/2026 Amit Jain 9. Neither the Ld.AR nor the Ld.DR has pleaded on the merits of the additions, hence all other grounds are dismissed as unadjudicated .

Order pronounced on this 31st day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक / Dated : 31st July, 2026. HKS, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Hem Kumari Digitally signed by Hem Kumari //True copy// Shrivastava, Shrivastava, PS, PS, ITAT, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.07.31 Raipur 13:28:21 +05'30' // True Copy // Private Secretary, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.