MONICA PAHUJA,FARIDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6551/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2013-20144 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 under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 but communicated to the assessee on 16.04.2021. This meant the notice was served after the old regime's deadline and should have followed the new regime's procedures.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14. The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation and that mandatory procedures under Section 148A were not followed.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio due to the notice under Section 148 being issued and communicated after the prescribed limitation period under the old regime.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. TarunChanana, Adv
Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated

11.06.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

(hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’)

in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065539663(1) arising out

P a g e | 2 ITA No.6551/Del/2025 Monica Pahuja (AY: 2013-14) of the assessment order dated 01.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National

Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhifor AY: 2013-14.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that assessee has raised an additional

ground of appeal that the notice u/s 148 of the Act, is barred by limitation and

mandatory compliance of procedure prescribed u/s 148A of the Act has not

been done thereby rendering entire reassessment proceedings void-ab-initio.

As the ground raised is legal and can be decided on admitted facts, we admit

the same.

3.

Coming to the merits of grounds, we find that the issue is of addition

made as unexplained income for AY: 2013-14 arising out of reassessment

order us/ 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. At page No. 1 assessee has provided

copy of notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2021 and at page No. 2-4

screen shots of the ITBA Portal substantiating that the notice u/s 148 of the

Act is dated 31.03.2021, however, issued and communicated to assessee on

16.04.2021.These assertions could not be disputed by the revenue by any

evidence to the contrary.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.6551/Del/2025 Monica Pahuja (AY: 2013-14) 4. Thus, the time limit was issuance of notice under the old regime was up

to 31.03.2021 but it appears that notice was served upon the assessee after

31.03.2021 and that should have been under the new regime which has come

into effect from 01.04.2021 as per the Finance Act, 2021. In similar

circumstances where notice was dispatched on order after 01.04.2021, the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that merely generation of notice u/s 148

on ITBA software is not sufficient and dispatch his necessary to sustain the

proceedings under old regime. Accordingly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO (2022) 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi) has

found the proceedings to be vitiated and accordingly following the judicial

principal we sustain the additional ground. Appeal is allowed and the

impugned reassessment order is quashed.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned reassessment

proceeding is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

P a g e | 4 ITA No.6551/Del/2025 Monica Pahuja (AY: 2013-14)

Dated 29.04.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →