THANGALAKSHMI,THANJAVUR vs. ITO WARD 1, THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR

PER SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M :

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 14.07.2025

passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after

“CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the

assessment year 2015-16.

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 84

days condoned.

ground nos. 4 to 8 and argued that the reopening is barred by limitation

for Assessment Year 2015-16 and prayed to take up the ground nos. 4 to

8 as preliminary issue as it goes to the root of the matter. He argued that

the notice u/s 148 of the act was issued beyond the specified date which

is beyond six years. He placed on record the order of this tribunal in the

case of Natarajan Sangeetha in ITA No.3280/Chny/2025 for AY-2015-16

and argued that the issue of notice for AY 2015-16 u/s. 148 of the act is

four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, notice

u/s. 148 of the act was issued on 07.04.2022 which is beyond the time

limit as specified u/s. 149 of the act. The Ld.AR argued that the notice

issued on 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation and resultantly the re-

assessment is thereon is liable to be quashed.

was initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the act dated 07.04.2022 based on

NMS – flagged cash deposits treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of

the act. The argument of Ld.AR that all the notices issued u/s 148 of

the act post 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid in terms of decision in

Page - 2 - of 5 the case of Rajiv Bansal is a gross misreading and does not invalidate

notices wholesale, it upholds them where compliant with extended

timelines under TOLA 2020 and exclusions under the third proviso to

section 149(1) of the act. Further, she argued that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal addressed notices issued u/s 148 old

regime (pre 01.04.2021) between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deeming

them as show cause notices u/s 148A(b) of the new regime w.e.f.

01.04.2021. She argued vehemently that this a curative measure under

article 142 to balance revenue and assessee’s interest amid Covid-19

disturbances and legislative amendments via Finance Act 2021.

under the old regime extended six year limit (old section 149(1)(b) r.w.

proviso old section 147 expiring 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 in cases of

escaped income more than one lakh. She submits it prevented still born

proceedings and allowed continuation under the new regime subject to

timelines. She argued vehemently that the notice dated 07.04.2022

issued u/s 148 of the act falls within this transitional frame work, post

Ashis Agarwal implementation via CBDT instruction no.1/2022 dated

11.05.2022. Further, she argued that contradictory to the assessee’s

claim, Rajiv Bansal decision does not invalidate section 148 notices as it

clarifies and upholds them for AYs like 2015-16 when issued within

surviving timelines. The court examined interplay of old / new regimes, Page - 3 - of 5 TOLA extensions from 20.03.2020 – 31.03.2021 to 30.06.2021

exclusions under the third proviso to section 149(1) of the act. She

prayed to dismiss the ground nos. 3 to 10 raised by the assessee.

record. We note that this Tribunal in the case of Natarajan Sangeetha

(Supra), in order to find out as to whether the notice issued u/s 148 is

time barred or not, examined the relevant provisions of the act and legal

position as per judicial proceedings vide para-4 of the order dated

04.02.2026. We note that the Tribunal examined the provisions u/s 149

as on 01.04.2022 and prior to the amendment in paras-4 & 5 respectively.

Considering the same and also based on the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal reported in 469 ITR 430(SC)

held that the revenue cannot issue notice u/s. 148 of the act for

assessment years prior to AY-2021-22 if six years from the end of the

relevant assessment year is expired on the date of issue of such notice.

Accordingly, held the notice therein dated 07.04.2022 was issued beyond

the time limit hence not valid. Further, the Tribunal held the arguments of

Ld.DR is not acceptable for the reason, for the purpose of applying

exclusion period, the notice should first survive the test of being issued

either under sections 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b) under the new regime.

Accordingly, held the question of applying on the third proviso for

calculating time limit does not arise. On plain reading of the said order, Page - 4 - of 5 we find facts and circumstances of the present case are similar in respect of issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation as the six years period would expire as on 31.03.2022. Therefore, we hold that the notice dated 07.04.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the act is barred by limitation, resultantly the reassessment dated 09.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the act is invalid and accordingly quashed. Thus, ground nos. 4 to 8 raised by the assessee are allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस एस एस. आर एस आर आर. रघुनाथा आर रघुनाथा रघुनाथा) रघुनाथा (यस यस यसयस यस यस यसिव�ने� यस िव�ने� िव�ने�रिव िव�ने� रिव रिव) रिव (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) लेखासद�यकेसम� लेखा सद�यकेसम�/Accountant Member �याियकसद�य �याियक सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा लेखा सद�यकेसम� सद�यकेसम� �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य Chennai, Dated: 02nd June, 2026. JPV

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. DR 5. GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.09 12:51:40 +05'30'

Page - 5 - of 5