AKJ MINERALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

AKJ Minerals Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner 705, A.P.S. Pace, 7th Floor, of Income Tax, Circle 1/IA, Mahendra Ray Lane, 1(1), Kolkata Kolkata - 700046 Aayakar Bhawan, [PAN: AAACL4712B] Kolkata - 700069 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Dubey, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 10.06.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1076867298(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited “1. That the Appeal Order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 10.06.2025 received on 10.06.2025 as passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) Delhi is against the Law and Facts of the case. 2. That your assessee explained entire queries as made by Ld. A.O. by submitting papers, related documents about transaction with Adventure India but Ld. A.O. failed to examine the documents, ledger copy of Adventure India, it is itself evidence that during the Assessment year 2012-13 entire transaction were made and accordingly Income was taken, only the outstanding amount of Assessment year 2012-13 was received during the assessment year 2013-14. That how can transaction of amount of assessment year 2012-13 be taken as Income during the assessment year 2013-14. 3. That Ld. A.O. has wrongly taken sum of Rs. 1,87,68,270/- (as computed Income u/s 143(3)) though there was appeal order wherein CIT Appeal has deleted the addition and return Income was accepted. 4. That Ld. A.O. has wrongly added sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act though during the year there was not any transaction, only your assessee received the payment from Adventure India out of outstanding payment receivable from said Adventure India from assessment year 2012-13. How Ld. A.O. can add amount as Income when assessee received the payment from outstanding balance of earlier year assessment year 2012-13 account. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi erred in fact and in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 1,45,00,000/-as made by Income Tax officer, Assessment Unit Kolkata without considering fact of the case. 6. That Ld. A.O. did not consider the submission of assessee though entire transactions were made by your assessee during the Asst. year 2012- 13 and shown profit in Profit & Loss Account of year ending 31.03.20212. that your assessee had filed the computation of Income for the Assessment year 2012-13 along-with copy of Income tax return and Balance Sheet. 7. That during the assessment year 2013-14 there was no transaction only the payment was received out of opening balance. This fact can be seen from the ledger of Adventure India A/c. However, Ld. A.O. himself stated in his order that Adventure India has filed their Income Tax return for Asst. year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and without verification from their records how he can take adverse remark against your assessee and wrongly added sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in total Income which was relates to Asst. year 2012-13. 8. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) NFAC Delhi has wrongly confirmed the addition sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- as assessed by the Ld. A.O. after disallowing Income of Assessment year 2012-13 which was received in the assessment year 2013-14, though your assessee paid the taxes on said Income in the assessment year 2012-13 and your assessee filed

3 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited all documents and Books of Account during assessment proceedings and all such documents are available with Ld. A.O. 9. That during the appeal proceedings your assessee requested to Ld. CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi and prayed for adjournment because assessee lawyer was not in town (enclose hereto the adjournment letter for your ready reference) but without considering the prayer of your assesseе Ld. CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi dismissed the appeal and not provided further opportunity and also not provided personal hearing and/ or video hearing. 10. That Ld. NFAC Delhi has wrongly conformed the income of earlier year which was received during the year and also your assessee shown the said income in the assessment year 2012-23 and accordingly paid the tax on said income in the assessment year 2012- 13, that action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi attract double taxation. 11. That the Ld. NFAC failed to grant adjournment for which your assessee requested that his advocate is out of station, hence the Ld. NFAC order is liable to be set aside and/or quashed. 12. That your assessee has reserved their right to alter, to modify, to amend, to rectify, add the grounds of appeal and/ or to take additional grounds of appeal on or before hearing of the case. 2. Subsequently, assessee has filed additional ground which is as under:

“1. That the Appellant has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the above appeal is pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication. 2. That the appellant seeks leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to raise the additional legal ground which was not taken in the Original memorandum of Appeal which goes to the root of the assessment, the Legal Grounds are as under: A. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued on or around 29th to 31 July 2022 under Income Tax for asst. Year 2013-14 is bad in Law. B. That Ld. DCIT Circle 1(1)/ Kolkata issued manual notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act dated 29.07.2022 and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act dated 31.07.2022 through ITBA and both the notices barred by limitation. (enclose the both notices for Hon'ble Bench reference) C That notice u/s 148 of Income Tax was barred by the limitation. That additional Law point ground is taken hereto with prayer before Hon'ble Bench to consider the issue of Law point.

4 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited D If a fresh reassessment notice under Section 148 dated in July 2022 is issued for AY 2013-14, the notice itself is time-barred which are as under: - E Under the old law, the last date to issue a valid Section 148 notice for AY 2013-14 was within 6 years from the end of that asst. year (i.e., by 31 March 2020) or due to TOLA extension only until 30 June 2021 and notices issued after that (e.g., late July 2022) exceed both limitations. F Notice under Section 148 dated 29th to 31st July 2022 for AY 2013-14 is invalid and time-barred. G. That notice is time-barred, the assessment orders u/s 148 of the Income Tax is liable to be quashed. 3 That the above ground is purely legal in nature and arises from the facts already available on record. No fresh investigation of facts is required. 4 That the ground goes to the very jurisdiction and validity of the assessment proceedings and therefore deserves to be adjudicated. 5 That the appellant could not raise this ground before the lower authorities due to inadvertence and lack of proper legal advice. 6 That Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 empowers this Hon'ble Tribunal to admit additional grounds in the interest of justice. 7 Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the additional legal ground deserves to be admitted and adjudicated. 8 That assessee/ appellant application is bonafide and made in the interest of justice and this appeal application should be allowed. 9. In the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that your honour would be graciously pleased to: 1. To consider the above legal ground of your assessee and allow this appeal legal ground and delete the addition as made by the Ld. A.O. and as confirmed by Ld. Ld. CIT (A) NFAC. 2. To consider the issue limitation and quash the proceeding u/s 148 of the Act. 3. To pass such order and orders as it may seem fit and proper so your assessee can get natural justice.” 3. Since additional ground filed by the assessee is purely on legal issue, therefore, the relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383

5 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited since in this no further facts are required to be investigated on the issue raised by the assessee. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

6 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited tax regime after following the due procedure under the new tax regime. Accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29.07.2022 and case was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished part reply, as per reply noted that the assessee received from Adventure India on account of Speculation Profit which were booked in FY 2012-13 and 2013-14 of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and Rs. 1,85,00,000/- respectively. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee but it could not justify. The AO noted that amount received is satisfy the condition to invoke section 68 of the Act and amount credited in the books of account was treated as income u/s 68 of the Act as cash credit of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-.

7 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited through ITBA. Both the notices are barred by limitation under the old law, the due date for notice of issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 was within six years from the end of that the relevant assessment year i.e.31.03.2022 but due to TOLA extension was only till 30th June 2021 and notice issued after that in July 22 exceeds both the limitation. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 is barred by limitation, he supporting the order of the co- ordinate Bench in the case of ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2197 & 2198/Kol/2024, order dated 27.10.2025.

8 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited 10. The Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and he produced the comments on the additional ground of the DCIT-1(1), Kolkata which is as under:

9 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited

10 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited

11 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited

12 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited

13 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited The AO has acted as per the judgement of Ho’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs Ashish Bansal and UOI vs Rajeev Bansal. Accordingly, arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel are completely baseless.

14 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited “72. The non obstante clause in Section 3(1) has to be read as controlling the provisions of the specified Acts, including the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 127 In the context of the issuance of a reassessment notice, the non obstante clause will override the provisions of the Income Tax Act in case of any direct conflict or inconsistency. Section 3(1) overrides Section 149 only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of reassessment notice under Section 148. The time limit for issuance of a reassessment notices, which fall for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, has been extended till 30 June 2021. However, the non obstante clause under Section 3(1) of TOLA will operate neither to extend the time limit of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year under Section 149(1)(a) of the new regime nor to extend the time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. The M P V Sundararamier v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 22. 105. A direction issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 is an order of a court. The third proviso to Section 149 of the new regime provides that the period during which the proceedings under Section 148A are stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded for computation of limitation. During the period from the date of issuance of the deemed notice under Section 148A(b) and the date of the decision of this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the assessing officers were deemed to have been prohibited from passing a reassessment order. Resultantly, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed by order of this Court from the date of their issuance (somewhere from 1 April 2021 till 30 June 2021) till the date of decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra), that is, 4 May 2022. 106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and materials relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirty days from the date of the judgment. A show cause notice is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. Due to the legal fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the PART F legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. 107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assesses to respond to the show cause notice under Section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes “the time or extended time allowed to the assessee.” Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice has to be excluded for

15 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited computing the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation of limitation given the third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149. PART E non obstante clause ensures that the Revenue has additional time beyond the statutory stipulated time limit to complete or comply with the formalities given the administrative difficulties that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses 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 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. 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 PART G 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. 13. On going through the above judgement, the AO had time to issue notice up to 28.08.2022, however the notice was issued on 29.07.2022 which is well within the surviving period for issue of notice. Accordingly, we hold that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

16 ITA No. 1619/KOL/2025 AKJ Minerals Limited in above terms. Since the assessee counsel did not argue on merits of the case. To sum up all the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 24.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 24.07.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches