SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 19/02/2026 for A.Y. 2015-16, on the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA 2806/MUM/2026 SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY “1. The order / notice u/s 148A[d] dated 13-4-2022 is totally time barred as per the judgment of Rajeev Bansal [SC] and needs to be quashed. 2. The Assessment Unit Tax Department (AUTD) as well as CIT(A) faceless erred while disallowing the legitimate expenses made as improving cost on property, ignoring the evidence already filed on 07/04/2022. 3. The AUTD as well as CIT(A) faceless erred while disallowing expenses of Rs.7,78,684/- as against actual the claim of Rs. 7,55,624/-. 4. The CIT(Appeals) Income Tax Department confirmed the disallowance of cost of Improvement of (Rs. 7,55,624/- OR Rs. 7,78,684/- as erroneous amount), by ignoring the facts. 5. The AUTD erred while levying the interest U/s. 234A, 234B, &; 234C. 6. The AUTD erred while initiating the penalty Us/. 271(1)( c), for expenses disallowed against the principal of natural justice.” 2. Though the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, the sole legal issue that goes to the root of the matter arises vide Ground No.1, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening proceedings by contending that the order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 13/04/2022 is barred by limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in [(2024) 166 taxmann.com 175 (SC)] and, therefore, liable to be quashed.

ITA 2806/MUM/2026 SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY 3.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that in para 19(f) of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had recorded the submission of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General that in respect of A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued u/s 148 on or after 01/04/2021 were required to be dropped as the same would not fall within the limitation period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”). Therefore, according to the assessee, once such concession had been recorded before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Ld. AO ought to have dropped the reassessment proceedings and could not have proceeded to pass the reassessment order.

3.2. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, fairly did not dispute the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) had recorded the submissions of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India to the effect that, for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued u/s 148 on or after 01/04/2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the limitation period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”). However, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the reassessment proceedings had been initiated on the basis of specific information relating to sale of immovable property by the assessee and, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. AO deserved to be sustained.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal.

ITA 2806/MUM/2026 SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY 4. The sole issue requiring adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 are sustainable in law.

5.1. We further note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06/01/2025 passed in SLP(Civil) Diary No.54301/2024 [part of group matter in SLP(Civil) Diary No.56892/2024] has also observed that the issue involved therein stood squarely covered by the decision rendered in Rajeev Bansal (supra). In the present case, admittedly, the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 13/04/2022 i.e. subsequent to 01/04/2021 for A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee are barred by limitation and hence are liable to be quashed.

ITA 2806/MUM/2026 SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY Accordingly, the notice issued u/s 148, order passed u/s 148A(d) and the consequential assessment order are hereby quashed.

Since the legal ground raised by the assessee has been allowed, the remaining grounds raised on merits are rendered academic and, therefore, require no adjudication.

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 12/05/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.

ITA 2806/MUM/2026 SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY Copy to:

SHEETAL VAIBHAV BELTANGADY, B/1101, EKDANT HEIGHTS, CHOGLE NAGAR, NEAR SHANI MANDIR, BORIVALI 1 EAST, MUMBAI-400066, MAHARASHTRA ITO WARD 33(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA 2 COMPLEX, BANDRA (E),, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE