MRS. RANI KISHIN CHANDIRAMANI,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL TAX-1(2)(1), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 1646/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Rani Kishin Chandiramani, Vs ACIT, A3, Fllat 403, 4/F, Bramha Suncity, Circle-1(2)(1), Wadgaonsheri, Opp PMC Garden, International Taxation, Pune, Maharashtra-411014 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BESPC9109K Assessee by : Sh. Hari Krishan, Authorized ITP Revenue by : Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 19.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 23.01.2025 for A.Y. 2018-19.

“1. The initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, by issuance, of the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act are invalid & bad in law. The same may be quashed/cancelled. Assessee has specifically requested the Ld. Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 24-12-2024 submitted in his office 26-12-20.24 to provide the copy of sanction obtained from- specified authority u/s. 151 of the Act to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessing office has however not provided the same to assessee so far. As such the assessee is not in a position to examine the legality of the sanction granted in this case u/s. 151 of

2 ITA No. 1646/Del/2025 Rani Kishin Chandiramani the Act. The assessee reserves all the rights to raise any additional ground that may be required on receipt, of the copy of the said sanction or otherwise. 1.1 The reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 in this case is invalid and had in law. The same may be quashed/cancelled. (i) The Assessing Officer had no cogent material/information before him to come to the conclusion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (ii) There is no live link between the material/information relied upon by the Assessing Officer and the conclusion drawn by the Assessing officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (iii) The Assessing Officer has failed to even specify the amount chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment. (iv) As par para 5 of the order u/s 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act the assessment has been reopened for further verification, which establishes that the Assessing officer was as yet, not a satisfied that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (v) In the order u/s 148A (d) the Assessing Officer has wrongly mentioned that no submissions have been made by the assessee in response to Show Cause Notice issued u/s 148A (b) of the I.T. Act. In fact the assessee has filed its submissions on 08-04-2022 though the same were due on 06-04-2022. The order u/s 148A (d) however is passed on 13-04-2022 i.e. after the assessee has filed its submissions. As such the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 148A (d) of the Act without considering the submissions/objections filed by the assessee. (vi) In para 5 of the Show Cause notice dated 27-03- 2022 issued u//s 148A (b) of the Act, it is mentioned that the said Show cause notice is issued after taking the prior approval u/s 151 of the Act. However in para 3 of the notice dated 13-04-2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, it is mentioned that the notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the CIT (IT), Delhi-1 accorded on 08-04-2022 vide reference No. F. No. CIT (Intl. Tax)-1/148/2022-23/44 dated 08-04-2022. There is a huge difference in both the dates.

3 ITA No. 1646/Del/2025 Rani Kishin Chandiramani 1.2 Consequently, the impugned assessment order passed on the basis of an invalid notice u/s. 148 of the Act is also invalid & bad in law. The same may be quashed/cancelled. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the capital loss of Rs. 12,26,184/- claimed by the assessee and has further erred in adding Rs. 12,26,184/- to the income of the assessee as short term capital gains. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the short term capital gains of Rs. 26,67,939/- and in adding of Rs. 26,67,939/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer has misdirected himself in holding that the unaccounted money generated by the assessee has been routed back in the form of Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record in support of this allegation/observation. The Assessing Officer has further misdirected /-himself in holding that the assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 26,67,939 which have not been declared in the: return of income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend/modify or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”

“(i) The initiation re-assessment proceedings are invalid and bad-in-law because the notice u/s 148 in this case has been issued after the lapse of the period of 3 years from the assessment order, even though the income escaping assessment does not exceed Rs.50 lacs. Thus the condition for re-opening of the assessment as prescribed in clause (b) of section 149 (1) of the I.T. Act is not satisfied. (ii) The initiation of re assessment proceedings is invalid and bad-in-law, as the prior sanction u/s 151(ii) of the I.T. Act before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act in this case is taken from the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)- Delhi, who was not the specified authority prescribed in this regard.”

4 ITA No. 1646/Del/2025 Rani Kishin Chandiramani 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return for A.Y. 2018- 19 on 24.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 8,77,403/- which was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a search action was taken u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Kushal Group of Ahmedabad on 05.02.2019. It was found during the course of search that the Kushal Group was engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus long term capital gain /loss. Further, it was found that during the financial year (F.Y.) 2017-18, the assessee had traded in penny scrip, M/s Kushal ltd. and acquired profits of Rs. 26,67,96,639/- which was not shown in the return. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2022 as per prescribed procedure. Subsequently, assessment was computed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 vide dated 23.01.2025 at an income of Rs. 47,61,523/- in pursuance of directions of DRP. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, raising multiple grounds of appeal. 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR has raised the issue of validity of the reassessment proceedings on following counts: (i) Requisite approval of the specified authority u/s 149 was not taken as more than 3 years had elapsed after the end of the assessment year and therefore approval of PCCIT was required to be taken instead of PCIT. (ii) Income escaping assessment in this case being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, notice u/s 148 of the Act could not have been issued after lapse of 3 years from the end of the assessment year.

5 ITA No. 1646/Del/2025 Rani Kishin Chandiramani 4.1 The Ld. AR has submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued to the assessee on 13.04.2022, i.e. after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the A.Y. 2018-19. Therefore, the approval had to be taken from PCCIT /CCIT and also the income escaping assessment has to be Rs. 50 lakhs or more which is not the case here. 5 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Albert Joseph Rozin .vs. ITO (I.T.) [2025] 176 taxmann.com 995(Mumbai-Trib.) wherein it has been held that for the purpose of computing period of limitation u/s 149, period allowed to the assessee to respond to show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) has to be necessarily excluded. Accordingly, he has argued that since notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2022 and assessee filed reply on 08.04.2022 and thereafter order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued on 13.04.2022. The same was within the prescribed time limit. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record along with the judicial citations relied upon by both the parties. We note that the income amounting to Rs. 26,67,939/- was stated by the AO to have escaped assessment as is seen from the notice u/s 148A(b) as well as order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. Since notice u/s 148 has been issued on 13.04.2022, i.e. after a lapse of more than 3 years, the condition laid down u/s 149(1)(b) regarding escapement of income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more is not satisfied. Accordingly, we hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 13.04.2022

6 ITA No. 1646/Del/2025 Rani Kishin Chandiramani was invalid as a result of which the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 23.1.2025 is liable to be quashed. 7. Since the assessment itself has been quashed, remaining grounds are rendered academic and hence are not being adjudicated upon. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Vikas Awasthy) (Renu Jauhri) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29/05/2026 * Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR New Delhi