SRIKANTA,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) - MYSURU , MYSURU, KARNATAKA

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC dated 23.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084009490(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 2 of 18 3. Since the assessed income is Rs.48,85,701/- and considering that the same is below lakhs, the proceedings are time-barred as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Act.

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 3 of 18 13. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that unless the Learned AO proves that the cash withdrawn is used for other purposes, the same is presumed to be available for redeposits. 14. The Learned AO/CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A/68 are inapplicable on the facts and circumstances Of the case;

(Tax effect Rs.30,40,571/-)

On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act as upheld by e Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), be quashed and relief sought be granted.”

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 4 of 18 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a retired school teacher and the primary sources of income are from agriculture activities and interest on savings bank accounts. As per the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy (RMS) formulated by the CBDT and available in the insight portal, the assessee had made the following transactions during the year:- Sl. Description No. of Amount (in No. transa Rs.) ctions 1. Deposited cash of Rs.10 Lakh or more 1 13,00,000/- in a saving bank account-Bank of Baroda 2. Deposited cash of Rs.10 Lakh or more 1 60,00,000/- in a saving bank account-Canara Bank ET & T sec 3. Cash deposits of Rs.50,000/- and 2 60,00,000/- above 4. Interest other than Interest on 1 12,701/- Securities- Section 194A- Bank of Baroda Total 1,33,12,701/-

Since the assessee had not filed any return of income disclosing the aforesaid transactions, the information suggested that the income arising out of the aforesaid transactions had escaped assessment for the AY 2015-16. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act dated 26/03/2022 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why a notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued requiring the assessee to submit his response with supporting documents on or before 05/04/2022. In response to the SCN u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, the assessee neither submitted any reply nor had sought for any additional time to comply with the notice. The AO thereafter proceeded to pass an Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26/04/2022 by holding that since the amount of income chargeable to tax totaling to Rs. 1,33,12,701/- represented in the form of asset, which had escaped assessment exceeded rupees fifty lakhs, this is a

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 5 of 18 fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2015-16. The AO also on the very same day i.e. on 26/04/2022 also issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 directing the assessee to furnish a return for the AY 2015-16 within 30 days from service of notice. The assessee although filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, but did not verify the same & therefore the return was treated as invalid return/non-est. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notices on various dates however, the assessee made only part compliances. The AO, thereafter passed re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 29/02/2024 on a total assessed income of Rs.48,85,701/- as detailed below:-

Sl.No. Description Amount (Rs.) 1. Income as per return of income filed No Return filed 2. Income as per return of income filed Nil against notice issued u/s 148 of the Act but not verified therefore treated as non-est 3. Income from other source-interest Rs.12,701/- income 4. Variation in respect of unexplained Rs.48,73,000/- money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act Total income determined as per the Rs.48,85,701/- above proposal

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 6 of 18 deposited was withdrawn from someone else’s account. It is also for the assessee to prove that the money deposited was legally not his income.

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 7 of 18 proceedings including re-assessment order passed are void-ab- initio. Without prejudice, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. AO exceeded his jurisdiction by invoking the extended period as per the provisions contained in section 149(1)(b) of the Act especially when the income addition were made to the tune of Rs. Rs.48,85,701/- only which is below Rs.50 lakhs as prescribed.

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 8 of 18 Sl.No. Particulars Date Reference 1 Last date for issuing 31.3.2022 Not applicable notice u/s 148 of the Act under the erstwhile section 149(1)(b) of the Act for the AY 2015-16 2 Issuance of show cause 26.3.2022 Paper book notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act 3 Due dates/time provide 05.04.2022 Approval by to respond to the show specified cause notice issued u/s authority of 148A(b) of the Act PCCIT, Karnataka & Goa accorded on 24.3.2022 4 Date of order u/s 148A(d) 26.04.2022 Paper book of the Act 5 Even if considered the 12.04.2022 [ 05/04/2022 + erstwhile 4th & 5th proviso 7 days ] to section 149 6 Issuance of notice u/s 26.4.2022 Paper book 148 of the Act

Thus, the core issue involved around whether the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.4.2022 for the AY 2015-16 falls within the permissible time limit or not?

9.1 Under the similar facts and circumstances as well as for the same assessment year 2015-16, this coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Raghavan Nambath Menon Vs. ITO in IT (IT)A No.278/Bang/2025 dated 6.2.2026 has held as under:

“7.3 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to mention the relevant provisions of the Act as it stood then which are as follows- Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing officer has in his

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 9 of 18 possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause(b) of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause(b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, “asset” shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 7.4 On going through the above provisions, we take note of the fact that for the AY 2015-16, the old 6 years limit expired on March 31, 2022. Therefore, the notices issued between 01/04/2021 and 31/03/2022, for escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more, could be valid if section 148A procedures were followed and the notice was not time-barred under the old law as of 31/03/2021. However, the notices issued after 31/03/2022, would generally be invalid as they would have become time-barred under the old law, failing the test of the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act. Thus, the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on April 19, 2022, for AY 2015-16, is primarily governed by the first proviso to the substituted Section 149(1) of the Act. This proviso stipulates that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued for an assessment year beginning on or before April 1, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued under the time limits of the old regime (pre-Finance Act, 2021). It is an undisputed fact that for AY 2015-16, the

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 10 of 18 last date for issuing a notice under the old regime was March 31, 2022. Since the notice was issued on April 19, 2022, it was issued after this cut-off date, rendering it time-barred under the old law. Consequently, the first proviso to the amended Section 149(1) acts as a bar, making the notice invalid, irrespective of the procedural compliance with Section 148A of the Act. We are also of the opinion that the exclusion of time under the 3rd& 4th provisos to Section 149(1) of the Act for Section 148A proceedings does not revive a notice that was already time- barred under the old regime as per the first proviso. We are of the considered opinion that the extended time limits of the new regime do not apply at all if the old limitation period had already expired as on 31/03/2022 & therefore the exclusions under the 3rd& 4th provisos to Section 149(1) of the Act does not arise at all. Thus, under the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, a notice under Section 148 of the Act could generally be issued within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, provided the income escaping assessment amounted to or was likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more. Therefore, the last date for issuing a notice for AY 2015-16 under the old regime was March 31, 2022. Thus, the first proviso to amended section 149(1) acts as a statutory bar, preventing the issuance of a notice under Section 148 for an assessment year like AY 2015-16 (which began on or before April 1, 2021) if such notice could not have been issued under the time limits of the old law. As stated earlier, the time limit for issuing a notice for AY 2015-16 under the old law expired on March 31, 2022. The notice in question was issued on April 19, 2022, which is after March 31, 2022. Consequently, the condition precedent for issuing a notice for AY 2015-16 under the new regime, as laid down by the first proviso to Section 149(1), is not met. The notice, having been issued after the expiry of the time limit under the old law, is therefore invalid. 7.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 meticulously analyzed the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below- “45. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) provides thus: "149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, - (a) If three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) If three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in possession of books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being immediately beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021:"

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 11 of 18 [Emphasis supplied] 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 47. In CTO v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla 1996 taxmann.com 1141 (SC)/[1996] 5 SCC 626 the Bengal Sales Tax Rules 1941 empowered the Commissioner to revise any assessment within four years from the date of assessment. Subsequently, the State Government issued a notification following the law to extend the time limit from four years to six years from the date of assessment. The extension of the time limit was challenged by the respondents on the ground that the assessments which had attained finality because of the expiry of the period of four years could not be reassessed. This Court observed that it was the clear intention of the notification to permit the Commissioner to revise any assessment made or order passed, provided the assessment had not been made before six years. It was held that if the legislative intention is clear and the language is unambiguous, full effect must be given to the legislative intention by reading the notification as applying not only to the incomplete assessments but also to assessments that had reached finality because of lapse of the earlier prescribed period. The principle that emanates from Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla (supra) is that the courts should give full effect to the legislative intention of granting reassessment powers to assessing officers unless the legislature, by express provision, states otherwise. 48. Notices have to be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April 2021, the time limits prescribed under the new regime came into force. The ordinary time limit of four years was reduced to three years. Therefore, in all situations, reassessment notices could be issued under the new regime if not more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. For example, for assessment year 2018-2019, the four year period would have expired on 31 March 2023 under the old regime. However, if the notice is issued after 1 April 2021, the three year time limit prescribed under the new regime will be applicable. The three year time limit will expire on 31 March 2022.

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 12 of 18 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 50. Another important change under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime is the increase in the monetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakhs. The old regime prescribed a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment was more than Rupees one lakh. In comparison, the new regime increases the time limit to ten years if the escaped assessment amounts to more than Rupees fifty lakhs. This change could be summarized thus:

Income chargeable to tax Regime Time limit which has escaped assessment Old Four years but not Rupees one lakh regime more than six years or more New Three years but not Rupees fifty lakhs regime more than ten years or more

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 13 of 18 chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs. 53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs. ii. TOLA can extend the time limit till 31 June 2021 54. The proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime uses the expression "beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021." Thus, the proviso specifically refers to the time limits specified under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime……….” 7.6 Thus, the Apex Court held that "no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the 'time limits specified under the provisions of' 149(1)(b) of the old regime" (Para 46). This means that for AY 2015-16, a notice under the new Section 148 could only be issued if it was not time-barred under the old regime's Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Further, the Apex Court held that for the AY 2015-16, the six-year limitation period under the unamended Section 149(1)(b) expired on March 31, 2022 (six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., March 31, 2016). The Supreme Court explicitly stated that "a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice" (Para 49). 7.7 Now, coming to the revenue’s reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Manoj Kumar Bagree v. Income Tax Officer reported in [2025] 176 taxmann.com 58 (Calcutta), we noted that the fact of that case are relatively distinguishable from the facts & issue involved in the present case. The Asst. year involved in the present case is AY 2015-16 whereas, the case relied upon by the revenue is related to AY 2019-20. Further, in the present case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after 6 years from the end of the AY by violating the provisions of unamended section 149(1)(b) of the Act, whereas in that case the notice u/s 148 was issued well within the 6 years as per the erstwhile

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 14 of 18 unamended section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Further, specifically for the AY 2015-16, the Revenue has conceded that all the notices issued on or after 01/04/2021 will have to be dropped which is not so in the case of revenue relied for the AY 2019- 20. Therefore, we are not inclined to rely on the above case law cited by the Revenue. 7.8 Further, another contention of the Revenue is that the provisions of section 148A & section 149 require that the order u/s 148A(d) be passed within the stipulated time period prior to the issue of the notice u/s 148 of the Act & hence the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act is well within the time. In this regard we are of the considered opinion that section 149 of the Act stipulates the time limit to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act & not the passing of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. This time limit has nothing to do with the issuance of show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act & passing of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act unlike in section 151 of the Act which categorically prescribed the specified authority for sanction for issue of notice for the purposes of both section 148 as well as section 148A of the Act. We are of the opinion that provisions of section 148A proceedings are completely different with that of the 148 proceedings. After the amendment in Finance Act, 2021 the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act can only be commenced after completion of 148A proceedings, however subject to certain exceptions. Before issue of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the AO shall conduct an enquiry, provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving SCN and after considering the reply furnished if any, decide, on the basis of material available on record including the reply of the assessee whether or not it is a fit case to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act by passing an Order. Thus the section 148A of the Act is complete code in itself. The contention of the assessee is that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 19/04/2022 is barred by limitation as per the 1st proviso to amended section 149(1) of the Act. Further section 149 of the Act stipulates the time limit for issue of the notice u/s 148 of the Act & therefore the contention of the Revenue that the order u/s 148A(d) was passed within the stipulated time period prior to the issue of notice u/s 148 is not at all tenable. The procedural compliance with Section 148A, while necessary, cannot validate a notice issued u/s 148 of the Act that is fundamentally flawed due to being issued beyond the statutory period of limitation. 7.9 Now coming to another contention of the Revenue that the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 26/03/2022 by which assessee was asked to give response/ objection to the same within 11/04/2022. In response to the same, assessee has filed its objection on 11/04/2022. On a plain reading of 5th proviso to Section 149, the time period of 16 days allowed to assessee to give response/ objection needs to be excluded. Further as per 6th proviso a period of 7 days need to be excluded. The assessing officer has passed the order u/s. 148A(d) on 18/04/2022 and issued the notice u/s. 148 on 19/04/2022, which very well falls within the limitation period. In this regard we are of the considered opinion that undisputedly the erstwhile third proviso to amended section 149(1) of the Act allows for the exclusion of the time taken for Section 148A proceedings. However, this exclusion is for computing the period of limitation as per section 149 of the Act. It does not override the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, which acts as a threshold condition for the applicability of the new regime to old assessment

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 15 of 18 years. If a notice was already time-barred under the old law, the exclusion of time under the 3rd or 4th provisos cannot revive it. The exclusion cannot override the fundamental bar imposed by the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. As stated earlier the first proviso to amended section 149(1) acts as a statutory bar, preventing the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year like AY 2015-16 (which began on or before April 1, 2021) if such notice could not have been issued under the time limits of the old law. We are of the considered opinion that first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act is a restriction and the erstwhile 3rd& 4th Provisos (which allow for exclusion of time for certain events) cannot override this fundamental restriction. The first proviso acts as a gatekeeper. This means that even if there were delays due to assessee’s response or court stays, these exclusions cannot revive a notice that is already time-barred by the first proviso. In Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Godrej Industries Ltd. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay), for AY 2014-15, the High Court held that the validity of a notice must be judged on the law existing on the date of issuance of the Section 148 notice. It emphasized that "the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under section 148 could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proviso could not save such notices" (Para 15). This means that if the notice is already time-barred under the old regime as per the first proviso, the exclusion of time for Section 148A proceedings under the 3rd proviso or 4th provisos cannot revive it. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devika Fibres (P.) Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 18 (Gujarat) clearly stated that "the notice which could not have been issued in the old regime period due to becoming time barred as per then operating provision, would also not be permissible to be issued post 01-4-2021" (Para 5.4.6). Thus, the embargo of the six-year limitation under the old regime continues in the new regime for assessment years prior to 2021-22. 8. Further, under the similar facts & circumstance & for similar AY 2015-16, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mohammed Yaseen v. Income Tax officer reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 280 (Karnataka) held as under- “5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record discloses that the impugned proceedings is relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16 in respect of the petitioner; however, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents issued impugned notice at Annexure-A2 under Section 148 of the I.T.Act on 01.04.2022, beyond the period of limitation and the same has already been held not to be permissible by the Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra), which reads as under:-

"19(e). The Finance Act, ([2021]) 431 ITR (St.) 52) substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 3 of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 16 of 18 Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies to the entire Income-Tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, then all the notices issued between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

Assessment Within 3 Expiry of limitation Within six Expiry of limitation year (1) years (2) read with TOLA for years (4) read with TOLA for (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3- TOLA not 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2017 applicable 2014-2015 31-3- TOLA not 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2018 applicable 2015-2016 31-3- TOLA not 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2019 applicable 2016-2017 31-3- 30-06-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2020 2017-2018 31-3- 30-06-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable 2021

19(f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020; 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-22 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten-years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-13, the ten-year period would have expired on March 31, 2023, while the six-year period expired on March 31, 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-13 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 6. Subsequently, in Nehal Ashit's case (supra) also, the Apex Court reiterated the very same position and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the notice issued after 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation and the impugned proceedings are not permissible beyond period of limitation. In the instant case, it

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 17 of 18 is an undisputed fact that the impugned proceedings is relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16, while the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 01.04.2022 was issued beyond/after 01.04.2021 which is impermissible in law and barred by limitation and consequently, the impugned orders/notices etc., deserve to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following:- 'ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders/Notices at Annexures-A1, A2, B, C1, D1 and E1 dated 01.04.2022, 01.04.2022, 15.03.2022, 09.03.2022, 27.08.2024 and 27.08.2024 respectively and subsequent orders/notices issued by the 1st respondent are hereby quashed. 8.1 In view of the above discussions & respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Jurisdictional High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on April 19, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is invalid & bad in law. The first proviso to the substituted Section 149(1) acts as a statutory bar, as the six-year limitation period under the old regime for AY 2015-16 expired on March 31, 2022. The procedural compliance with Section 148A or the exclusion of time under the 3rd or 4th erstwhile provisos cannot override this fundamental jurisdictional defect of limitation. Since we have held the notice dated 19/04/2022 issued under section 148 of the Act to be barred by limitation & therefore the consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act deserve to be quashed. Further, since we have adjudicated the sole legal ground in favour of the assessee, the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic.”

9.2 Respectfully following the above decision of the coordinate bench, we are of the considered opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 on 26.4.2022 is illegal and bad in law as barred by limitation even if we consider the erstwhile 4th & 5th proviso to section 149(1) of the Act and accordingly the consequential order passed u/s 147 of the Act on 29/02/2024 deserves to be quashed & hence quashed. Since we have adjudicated the case on the legal ground as raised by the assessee, the other grounds raised becomes academic.

ITA No.508/Bang/2026 Mr. Srikanta, Mysore Page 18 of 18

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 10th July, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.