RAJDEO SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT,CC-3, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Rajdeo Singh, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, D-40, Lovely Apartments, Delhi. Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi – 110 091. (PAN: AJPPS7845D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pavan Ved, Advocate Shri Mohit Gupta, CA Shri Mirza Muhiuddin Baiq, ACA Shri Nishant Garg, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026 Date of Order : 29.04.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 28.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 raising following grounds of appeal :-

2 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated 28.10.2025 is bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and unjust. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) in determining the total income of the appellant at Rs.91,05,700/- vide order u/s 147 of the Act dated 31.05:2U23 as against the returned income of Rs.9,47,830/-. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the illegal reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the reopening of assessment based on the alleged wrong information received from the Investigation Wing which have been used against the appellant totally on presumptive basis which has no relevance with the actual transaction undertaken by the appellant and thus, the impugned order u/s 147 of the Act needs to be quashed which has been upheld without hearing the side of the appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the wrong arbitrary additions so made based on the statements recorded of third parties(persons) without providing the reasonable opportunity of cross examination to the appellant to rebut the said testimony of the third parties and for confronting the said parties before passing the order u/s 147 of the Act, despite of the fact that cross- examination is the sine qua non of due process of taking evidences and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the party put on a notice of the case made out against him and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the additions against the principles of natural justice & against the legal principles of audi alteram partem. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITCA) has erred in law in ignoring that the very reopening u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act suffers from material defect as the alleged information based on which the re-opening assessment have been initiated was found during the course of search action conducted u/s 132 of the Act and accordingly, the impugned order so passed u/s 147 of the Act needs to be annulled or quashed on the basis of this ground alone as the said proceedings should have been made under specific provisions of the Income Tax Law.

3 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025

4 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and thus, the assessment order along with consequent demand deserves to be quashed." 3. Since the above ground of appeal is purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the same may be admitted in view of the judgement of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC). 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the additional ground of appeal being purely legal issue. 5. In view of the reliance made by the ld. AR for the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra) and issue being purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a legal issue. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted the following written submissions before us as under: “1. In the instant appeal, the assessment was framed vide order u/s 147 of the Act dated 31.05.2023 for AY 2015-16 wherein income was erroneously assessed as under: Returned Income Additions made Assessed income Demand created 9,47,830 81,57,869 91,05,699 26,67,107 2. That a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 26.05.2022 for AY 2015-16 wherein on the basis of certain information received as a result of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 conducted on 25.02.2021 by the DDIT, Rohtak in the case of Tradenext Securities Limited (Erstwhile Lifeline Securities Limited) was relied to propose

5 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 to re-open the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. 3. That the appellant in response to said notice dated 26.05.2022, filed a detailed reply dated 27.06.2022, however, the submissions of the appellant were not considered by the Ld. AO and accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued on 19.07.2022 for AY 2015-16. 4. That consequently assessment was framed u/s 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.05.2023 determining the income at Rs. 91,05,700/- as against the returned income of Rs. 9,47,830/-. 5. That the aforesaid assessment order so framed u/s 147 of the Act dated 31.05.2023 is barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab- initio, illegal and accordingly, deserves to be quashed in entirety on the basis of the Additional Ground of Appeal raised by the appellant vide request letter dated 09.03.2026 itself, reliance placed on the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358 (SC) as the said ground goes to the roots of the matter. The Additional Ground so raised is reproduced hereunder [copy of the request letter dated 09.03.2026 along with copy of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 is enclosed herewith at Page Nos. 7-9 of this Written Submissions (WS)]: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 is time barred being issued beyond limitation and accordingly, the entire assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and thus, the assessment order along with consequent demand deserves to be quashed.” 6. That in the instant case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 issued for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation since it has been issued after expiry of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16. Accordingly, as per the mandate of Sec. 149 of the Act, the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act and the consequent assessment framed vide order u/s 147 of the Act dated 31.05.2023 are barred by limitation and therefore, deserves to be

6 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 quashed. 7. That it is most respectfully submitted that the time limit as provided under new law inserted vide Finance Act, 2021 substituting the old regime of assessment with new regime as well as the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 are not applicable for AY 2015-16 in view of the fact that the Revenue through ASG itself conceded in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal that TOLA provisions are not applicable for AY 2015- 16, therefore, all notices issued after 1.4.2021 for AY 2015-16 under un-amended provisions will have to be dropped. The relevant contents of the judgment dated 03.10.2024 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal in Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024 are reproduced hereunder: “e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA 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 TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;” 8. In view of the above, since the revenue has itself conceded that TOLA and new regime for re-assessment does not apply for AY 2015-16 then accordingly, the old limitation of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year will apply to AY 2015-16, according to which the limitation to re-open assessment for AY 2015-16 expires

7 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act so issued on 19.07.2022 in the instant case is barred by limitation and accordingly, making the entire assessment proceedings & order time barred and thus, deserves to be quashed. 9. With regard to the above, reliance is placed on the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT, Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) wherein vide order dated 19.12.2024 (copy of the judgment dated 19.12.2024 is enclosed herewith at Page Nos. 10-12 of this WS), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) held as under: “2. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the prayers made by the petitioner are required to be allowed as the same are covered by the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court OnLine SC 2693,2024 INSC 754/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), as recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of the said decision. He also submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had, after noting the aforesaid concession, allowed a similar petition - Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle: W.P.(C) 17639/2022 by order dated 13.12.2024. ….. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2015-16 are liable to be set aside. It is so directed.” 10. That further reliance is placed on the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Eash Kumar Sarna and Seema Rani Sarna vs. ITO in ITA No. 6235-36/DEL/2025 (AYR 2015-16)

8 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 07.01.2026 (copy of the judgment dated 07.01.2026 is enclosed herewith at Page Nos. 13- 15 of this WS) held as under: “4. After hearing the rival contentions and gone through the above noted facts and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra) and also decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Harish Kumar vs. NFAC, Delhi (Supra). We hold that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, reassessment completed on 19.05.2023 is barred by limitation and accordingly, the same is set aside. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 11. That in addition to above, it is also most respectfully submitted that the assessment was framed u/s 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.05.2023 by placing reliance on the information gathered during the course of another search action conducted on 16.05.2018 in Dinesh Tyagi Group of Cases which search action do not form the basis of re- opening of assessment as show caused vide SCN u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 26.05.2022 and thus, the very re-opening is void-ab-initio being violative of principles of natural justice and thus, order u/s 147 of the Act dated 31.05.2023 deserves to be quashed on this count as well. 12. The assessee reserves right to furnish submission on merits.” 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The assessee has raised additional ground that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation and

9 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 accordingly, the assessment order so framed u/s 147 of the Act and consequent demands deserves to be quashed. Further it is submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal in Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024 reported in 469 ITR 46, wherein it is held that for the assessment year 2015-16, limitation period to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act is upto 31.3.2022 and the Revenue through ASG itself conceded in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal that TOLA provisions are not applicable for AY 2015-16, therefore, all notices issued after 1.4.2021 under un-amended provisions will have to be dropped. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT, Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) wherein also it has been held that the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2015-16 are liable to be set aside. 9. Based on the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional high court had clearly held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act beyond 31.03.2022 is barred by limitation and thus, following the principles of judicial discipline, we hereby quash the notice so issued u/s 148

10 ITA No.8204/DEL/2025 of the Act dated 19.07.2022 in case of the assessee and also quash the assessment order so framed u/s 147 of the Act dated 31.05.2023 along with consequent demands being barred by limitation, void-ab-initio and bad in law. 10. Since we have already quashed the entire assessment order by allowing the additional ground so raised by the assessees, therefore, the other grounds of appeal so raised by the assessee are not being adjudicated and are left open. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 29.04.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI