MANOJ SINGH,,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, SILIGURI,, SILIGURI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1610/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manoj Singh ...........................................................................................................Appellant C/o. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3rd floor, Kolkata- 700013 [PAN No.AVLPS4697K] Vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siligurix……..…………………....……….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Matigara, Siliguri, West Bengal- 734004

Appearances by: Deep Agarwal, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Pradeep dung Dung, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 16, 2026 Date of pronouncing theorder : August 21 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2016-17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 sources" despite carrying substantial wholesale business of ITC products with turnover exceeding Rs. 73 crores during FY 2015- 16. Specific information from DDIT(Inv.)/Unit V-Siliguri revealed purchases of Rs. 60,77,56,387/- from ITC Ltd. and cash deposits aggregating Rs. 6 crores in savings bank account. Consequently, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 following order u/s 148A(d) dated 17/04/2023 recording escaped assessment exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. During faceless assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448, the Assessing Officer prepared Trading Account based on independent third-party data obtained u/s 133(6) from ITC Ltd., determining Gross Profit at Rs. 2,14.60.431/- (Opening stock Rs. 2.83,13,087+ Purchases Rs. 6,19.89.681 TDS Rs. 1,82,725 less Sales Rs. 6,46,20,000, credits Rs. 1,10,95,596 and closing stock Rs. 1,07,30,215). After allowing verified banking expenses of Rs. 5.29.916/- and estimating indirect expenses @40% of gross profit at Rs. 85,84,172/- (being reasonable for wholesale trade), net addition of Rs. 90.43.582/- was made to declared business income of Rs. $3,02,761/-, determining total income at Rs. 1,30,90,858/- and consequent demand of Rs. 96,64,969/- u/s 156.

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us.

“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice w/s 148 dated 17.04.2023, which is ex facie barred by limitation in terms of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed 3.1. The Ld. AR submits that in the instant case time limit available with the Revenue to issue notice u/s 148 of theAct was up to 31.03.2023 but that has been issued on 17.04.2023 being barred by limitation. He has placed the following decision:-

Case Title Date of Order 1. High Court of Delhi, Ware Silver Tower [2025] 171 Pot Lid vs ACIT taxmann.com 270 Confirmed by, Supreme Court, ACIT S (Delhi) Wave Silver Tower Pot Ltd [2026] 185 taxmann.com 486 (SC) 2. High Court of Telengana, Cyberabad WP No.25121/2024 Citizens Health Services vs DCIT 3. High Court of Delhi, Sanjay Bansal vs W.P.(C) No.6660/2024

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 ITO 4. High Court of Delhi, Manju Somani vs W.P.(C) No.7364/2024 ITO 5. High Court of Delhi, Abhinav Jundal vs W.P.(C)l No.7405/2024 ACIT-Circle 6. ITAT Hyderabad, Veera hanuman Filing ITA No. 16/Hyd/2026 vs ITO 7. ITAT Mumbai, Swami Vivekanand ITA College vs ITO No.6628/Mum/2025 8. ITAT Mumbai, Babu Hasan Shaikh vs ITA No. 926/Mum/2025 ITO 9. ITAT Bangalore, Abbur Subramanyam ITA No.664/Bang/2025 Venkata vs ITO, International Taxation

Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 Section 149, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Time limit for issuance of notice (General) – Assessment year 2016-17 – Assessee challenged impugned notice issued under section 148- it was noted that period of six years for relevant assessment year 2016-17, expired on 31-3-2022 – Whether since impugned notice had been issued thereafter on 30-08-2024, same was barred by limitation – Held, yes [Para 5] [Infavour of assessee] FACTS The assessee by way of instant petition challenged the impugned notice dated 30-8-2024 issued under section 148 for the assessment year 2016-17 The assessee also challenged the notice issued under section 148A(b), and the order passed under section 148A(d) prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. HELD In the present case, the period of six years for the relevant assessment year 2016-17, thus, expired on 31-3-2022. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is, thus, barred by limitation. [Para 5] In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. [Para 7] The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. [Para 8] CASE REVIEW Manju Somani v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 675/300 Taxman 516/466 ITR 758 (Delhi) (para 6) followed. CASES REFERRED TO Manju Somani v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 675/300 Taxman 516/466 ITR 758 (Delhi) (para 3) and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/469 ITR 46/301 Taxman 238 (SC) (para 4). Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv for the Petitioner Siddharth Sinha SSC and Ms. Dacchita Shahi Adv. For the Respondent. ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the filed the present petition, inter Inter olla, impugning a notice daned 30.08.2024 (hermafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment yrar (AY) 2016-17 2. The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(f) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice.

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income-tax Officer Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC 5411-DB/(2024) 165 sexmans.com 675/300 Taxman 516/466 ITR 758 (Delhi). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bonsal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 26/03/(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70-469 ITR 46/301 Taxman 238 (SC) and drew the attention of this Court to the following passage from the said judgment: 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (1) no notice under Section 148 of the new the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021: (07) 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 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. 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 old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before Resulta 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 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) t protect the interests of the assessees.” 5. In the present case, the period of six years for the relevant AY 2016- 17, thus, expired on 31.03.2022. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is, thus, barred by limitation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to counter the said submissions. 7. In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 4.1. It is pertinent to mention here that Revenue has preferred SLP against the said order but Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the Revenue by confirming the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The supreme Court has confirmed the order by dismissing the SLP which is reproduced herein below:-

Section 149, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment Time limit for issuance of notice (General) Assessment year 2016-17-Assessee challenged notice issued under section 148-It was noted that period of six years for relevant assessment year 2016-17, expired on 31-3-2022 High Court held that since notice had been issued thereafter on 30-8-2024, same was barred by limitation Whether there was gross delay of 411 days in filing SLP which had not been satisfactorily explained by revenue, even otherwise, there was no good ground to interfere with impugned order passed by High Court and, thus, SLP was to be dismissed-Held, yes [Paras 1 to 3] [In favour of assessee]

CASE REVIEW SLP dismissed against Wave Silver Tower (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 171 taxmann.com 270 (Delhi) (Para 3) S. Dwarkanath, A.S.G. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Rajat Vaishnav, Padmesh Mishra, B.K. Satija, Keshav Thakur and Mrs. Seema Bengani, Advs. for the Petitioner ORDER 1. There is a gross delay of 411 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. 2. Even otherwise, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

3 The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 4. Rending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 5. Admittedly in the present case notice issued u/s 148 is on 17.04.2023 beyond the last permissible date of 31.03.2023, hit by the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we find substance in the arguments of the AR that notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation and accordingly notice is quashed.Since we have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 hence consequences proceeding are also hereby quashed.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed on legal issue.

Kolkata, the 21st August , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 21 .08.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 8

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.1610/Kol/2026