SUBASH AKILA,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 22(1), TAMBARAM

PER SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M :

These appeals by the Assessee are against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

:- 2 -: ITA Nos. 3927 & 3928/Chny/2025

proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the

sake of convenience.

ITA NO: 3927/Chny/2025 for AY 2015-16:

additional ground no. 3 and argued that the reopening is barred by limitation

for Assessment Year 2015-16 and prayed to take up the ground no. 3 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 01.04.2022 which is beyond the time limit as

specified u/s. 149 of the act. The Ld.AR argued that the notice issued on

01.04.2022 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 01.04.2022 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 the case of

Rajiv Bansal is a gross misreading and does not invalidate notices Page - 2 - of 6

:- 3 -: ITA Nos. 3927 & 3928/Chny/2025

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 01.04.2022 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, TOLA extensions from 20.03.2020

– 31.03.2021 to 30.06.2021 exclusions under the third proviso to section

Page - 3 - of 6

:- 4 -: ITA Nos. 3927 & 3928/Chny/2025

149(1) of the act. She prayed to dismiss the ground no. 3 raised by the

assessee.

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, we find facts

and circumstances of the present case are similar in respect of issue of

notice u/s. 148 dated 01.04.2022 is barred by limitation as the six years

Page - 4 - of 6

:- 5 -: ITA Nos. 3927 & 3928/Chny/2025

period would expire as on 31.03.2022. Therefore, we hold that the notice dated 01.04.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the act is barred by limitation, resultantly the reassessment dated 06.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the act is invalid and accordingly quashed. Thus, ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed.

ITA No: 3928/Chny/2025 For AY 2015-16: 8. Since, we have quashed re-assessment dated 01.04.2022 in ITA No. 3927/Chny/2025 in the aforementioned paras, the order of imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.

Copy to: 1. Appellant Page - 5 - of 6

:- 6 -: ITA Nos. 3927 & 3928/Chny/2025

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.09 12:52:07 +05'30'

Page - 6 - of 6