RENUKA MOHAN CHANDIRAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14.

2 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman 2. The first and foremost legal ground raised by the assessee challenges the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the notice issued under section 148 is barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to notice issued under section 148 dated 20.07.2022 are wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said notice has been issued beyond the surviving period of limitation as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). In support of the said contention, our attention was drawn to the chronology of events and the relevant dates emerging from the records.

3 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman

4 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman furnished its reply on 21.06.2022. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 148A(d) on 20.07.2022 and issued the consequential notice under section 148 on the very same date. According to the Ld. Counsel, once the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal is applied, only the surviving period of nine days could have been utilised by the Revenue after 21.06.2022, and therefore the notice under section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 30.06.2022. Since the impugned notice has admittedly been issued only on 20.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

5 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman has, in paragraphs 111 and 112 of the judgment, explained the manner in which limitation is required to be computed in all such cases. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), which crystallises the aforesaid legal position, is reproduced hereunder: “110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149. 111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because

6 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.”

7 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman tested on the touchstone of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned notice under section 148 is clearly barred by limitation.

8 ITA No.4174/Mum/2026 Renuka Mohan Chandiraman hereby quashed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 30th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 30/06/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai