GOVINDA NAICKER VENKATESAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथ, लेखा सद� के सम& Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1695/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Govinda Naicker Venkatesan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1/189, Perumal Koil Street, Ward -8(1), Mettukuppam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 095. [PAN: ABWPV-8528-K] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+थ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. I. Dinesh, Advocate & Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate *+थ) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Center [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

the reopening is barred by limitation for Assessment Year 2015-16 and

prayed to take up the ground nos.1.2 to 1.4 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 at page no.9 of paper book was issued on 05.04.2022 which is

beyond the time limit as specified u/s. 149 of the act. The Ld.AR argued

that the notice issued on 05.04.2022 is barred by limitation and resultantly

the re-assessment is thereon is liable to be quashed.

reassessment was initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the act dated

05.04.2022 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 wholesale, it upholds them

where compliant with extended timelines under TOLA 2020 and

3 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

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 05.04.2022

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,

4 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

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.

5 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

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 05.04.2022 is barred by limitation as the

six years period would expire as on 31.03.2022. Therefore, we hold that

the notice dated 05.04.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the act is barred by

limitation, resultantly the reassessment dated 20.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s

144B of the act is invalid and accordingly quashed. Thus, ground nos.

1.2 to 1.4 raised by the assessee is allowed.

raised in the form-36 become academic and requiring no adjudication.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 16.06.2026 JPV आदेश की *ितिलिप अ1ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ)/Appellant, 2.*+थ)/ Respondent,

6 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.17 11:59:46 +05'30'