ATTRACTIVE IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 228/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 July 2026AY 2013-1412 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, following Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this notice were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return declaring NIL income. Later, information was received that the assessee had advanced an unsecured loan of Rs. 1,74,00,000/-. Reassessment proceedings were initiated after the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 were barred by limitation, and if the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 149,Section 68,Section 271(1)(c),Section 251(1)(a),Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 03.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 228/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1114, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Ward-3(1), Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110019 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGCA6445E Assessee by: Sh. S. R. Wadhwa, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Garg, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the best judgment Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023 was dismissed.

2.

The facts in brief as culled out from para 1 of the assessment order are as under: “The assessee, M/s Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAGCA6445E) filed its ITR for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring income of Rs. NIL on 30.09.2013. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act 1961. Further no assessment was made in this case u/s 143(3). As per information received from the I.T.O., Ward-22(4), New Delhiit has been intimated that during the course of assessment proceeding in the case of M/s Syndicate

2 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. Buildwell Private Limited for assessment year 2013-14 it has been noted that M/s Syndicate buildwell Private Limited has received unsecured loan from M/s Attractive Impex Private Limited (PAN: AAGCA6445E) of Rs. 1,74,00,000/-.After examination of the said information, a Show Cause Notice u/s.148A(b) was issued to the assessee company on 27/5/2022 providing the information and material to the assessee company and fixing two weekstime to submit its response. But no reply was furnished by the assessee company in response to Show Cause Notice u/s.148A(b) as issued on 27/5/2023. As the assessee company was unable to explaín the source of transactions amounting to Rs.1,74,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, the case has been initiated for Re-assessment Proceedings u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. After obtaining approval from the Competent Authority, Order u/s.148A(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee company on 21/07/2022 initiating the Re-assessment Proceeding u/s.147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 by issuing notice u/s.148. No Return of Income has been furnished by the assessee company in response to Notice u/s.148. Subsequently, Notice u/s.142(1) has been issued on 5/1/2023 and 23/1/2023 and served electronically upon the assessee company on the same day. But no reply has been filed by the assessee company in response to Notice u/s.142(1). Thereafter, a communication dated 8/2/2023 has been sent to the assessee company in respect of non-compliance of initial notice u/s.142[1] of the I.T. Act, 1961 asking the assessee company to furnish reply within five days of receipt of this mail. But still no response has been received from the assessee company. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice u/s. 144 has been issued on 17/2/2023 asking the assessee company as you have neither filed Return of Income in response to Notice u/s.148 nor furnished any reply in response to notices as served upon you. Hence, you are hereby show cause as to why your case should not be passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response to Show Cause Notice u/s.144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 17/2/2023, the assessee company furnished a part compliance. Later on, Notice u/s.142[1] has been issued on 9/3/2023 and 4/5/2023 seeking some documents, but the assessee company did not furnish any documents which were requisitioned. However, final Show Cause Notice dated 16/5/2023 has been issued to the assessee company stating that you are hereby given an opportunity to show cause as to why the above payment of Rs.1,74,00,000/- should not be treated as bogus transaction and added back with your total income. The assessee company

3 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. furnished its reply in response to above Show Cause Notice which is not acceptable.” 3. Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made in the assessment order.

4.

Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and raising following grounds: “1. That CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the allegation of Assessing Officer that there is no evidence on record of any communication was made by assesse for treating the filing of income tax return under section 139 of Income tax act should be treated as it filed under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. In fact, the assesse had duly requested the assessing officer to treat the return already filed under section 139 as return filed under section 148 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in accepting the allegation of AO that the assesse had not filed nor complied with, the requisition of the assessing officer. In fact, the assesse had duly filed the complete reply along with desired documents and details to the assessing officer. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in as much as by accepting the allegation of the assessing officer that the re-opening of the case under section 148 is based on credible information and in accordance with the law without considering the reply of the assesse with regard to the re-opening of the case under section 148 of the Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts to sustain the additions of Rs.1,74,00,000/- as made by Assessing officer on account of undisclosed income for a loan received by company which is wrong and illegal without any basis and evidence made in the assessment.

4 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law by accepting the contention of the assessing officer that the assesse failed to explain the nature and source of funds out of which the alleged loan was granted and the onus under section 68 not been discharged by the assesse before the assessing officer. In this connection, it is stated that the assesse duly established the identity, creditworthiness of the source and genuineness of the transaction of Rs.1,74,00,000/-. All the desired information and documents duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and are available on record as it filed through income tax e filing portal. The portions of the reply/submission of the assesse also pasted in the assessment order by the assessing officer itself. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has not given clear finding against proposed penalty by Assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which is wrong. 7. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as well as assessing officer failed to consider the newly enacted provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act under which a reasonable and proper opportunity must be provided to the assesse before passing any order under section 144 of the Act.” 5. The assessee also raised the following admission of additional legal grounds under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (AT) Rules, 1963: Additional Grounds sought to be raised “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio, since the notice under section 148 dated 21.07.2022, issued under the substituted provisions of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by limitation under section 149 of the Act read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754 / (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC).” 6. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR on admission of the additional grounds. In support of his application seeking

5 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. permission to raise additional grounds, it is argued that it is purely a legal ground and the necessary facts are already on record and therefore relying upon the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC), it is submitted that additional grounds may be admitted and adjudicated in favour of the assessee. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the additional grounds taken up by the assessee are hereby admitted.

7.

We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR regarding additional grounds and also examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR has referred page No. 2 of the paper book filed before us containing the table for calculation of time barred notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was argued that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC). It was therefore argued that since neither AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the notice u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the assessment order be quashed.

8.

We have also heard the Ld. DR who was supplied with the paper book, and after going through Page No. 2 containing the table for the calculation of time-barred notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Ld. DR has submitted that the Bench may consider the

6 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. submissions with respect to the applicability of the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal case (supra) in its own

discretion and has prayed for restoring the file to the AO for

deciding the matter afresh.

9.

We have considered the rival submissions and have

perused the material on record. Page no. 2 of the paper book

containing the details in respect of notice dated 21.07.2022 u/s

148 of the Act being time barred is extracted as under:

Particulars Details Assessment Year 2013-14 Last date to issue notice under section 148 as per old law 31.03.2020 section 149, i.e., six years from the end of the relevant assessment year Extended deadline to issue notice under section 148 as per 30.06.2021 TOLA and notifications issued thereunder Notice issued under section 148 of the erstwhile provisions 25.06.2021/ 30.06.2021 Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 04.05.2022 in Union of India 04.05.2022 v. Ashish Agarwal deeming notices issued under the erstwhile law as notices under section 148A(b) of the new law and directing that material/information be supplied within 30 days from the said order and assessees be allowed tw o weeks thereafter to file reply Notice/letter under section 148A(b) pr oviding material in 27.05.2022 pursuance of the Hon’ble Supreme C ourt or der in Ashish Agarwal Time limit to file reply 10.06.2022 Reply filed by the Assessee - Time excluded as per third proviso to section 149(1) as 25.06.2021 to explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, i.e., 10.06.2022 from the deemed show cause stage till supply of material and the time allowed to the assessee to file reply Time that was available/left to issue notice under section 148 5 days/0 day; as per section 149 read with TOLA (25.06.2021 / 30.06.2021 to 30.06.2021) Extended time to be given as per fourth pr oviso to section 7 days 149(1) Time limit to issue notice under section 148 as per section 149 17.06.2022; (7 days as amended by Finance Act, 2021, as per Rajeev Bansal from 10.06.2022) Date of notice under section 148 21.07.2022

10.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed

legal ground, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing

7 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC), the re-assessment proceedings initiated under the old or un-amended provisions of section 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), are without authority of law.

11.

It was contended that for Assessment Year 2013-14, the limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions of section 148, as saved by the third proviso to section 149. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice u/s 148 pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued on 21.07.2022, well beyond the permissible limitation.

12.

We have heard rival submissions of the parties including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notices u/s 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice issued u/s 148 on 21.07.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpreted the

8 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA.

13.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation u/s 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2013-14 expired on 30.06.2021. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 21.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation.

14.

We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sh. Deepak Agarwal vs. DCIT order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA No. 2307/Del/2025 wherein notices issued on 30.07.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajeev Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:

9 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. “2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in the case of the assessee a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law which is barred by limitation since the provisions of taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) (TOLA) are not applicable for the AY 2015-16 as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. in WP(c) 2558/2023 dated 24.03.2025. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT and Others in Civil Appeal No.5177/2025 dated 02.04.2025 noted that the Revenue made a concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing off the appeal in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) (SCC) Online SC 2693, that for the AY 2015-16 notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA. Ld. Counsel also submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Nehal Rashid Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary No. (S) 57209/2024 dated 4.4.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of these decisions the reassessment framed for the AY 2015-16 based on the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022, is time barred and bad in law. 4. Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly in this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law based on which the reassessment for the AY 2015-16 was framed by the AO on 31.5.2023. The reassessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee. 6. In the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) the Jurisdictional High Court considered whether reassessment completed for the AY 2015-16 based on a notice issued u/s 148 and the viz a viz the applicability of the provisions of TOLA and based on the concession of the Revenue that for the AY 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA, held that the notice issued under 148 was beyond the period of limitation and consequently the same is liable to be set aside.

10 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. 7. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others (supra) quashed the notices issued u/s 148 observing as under: - “2. These appeals arise from 'the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2823, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- "1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1s t 2. December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) Mo.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Mo.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, 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 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." 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year

11 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. 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 of 2023, 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.” 8. Above decisions squarely applies to the fact situation of the assessee and therefore respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the notices issued u/s 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for reopening the assessment for the AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment made based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, the impugned reassessment order having been made pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 the reassessment order is hereby held to be bad in law and the same is quashed. Ground Nos. B, C & D of grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.” 15. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Sh. Deepak Agarwal (supra), we are of the opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 21.07.2022 is barred by limitation as having been issued beyond the period specified u/s 149 of the Act. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed.

12 ITA No. 228/Del/2026 Attractive Impex Pvt. Ltd. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 03/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →