PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL HUF,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7444/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2026AY 2014-1512 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the period specified under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as exempt income. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148 for reassessment, treating the LTCG as accommodation entries. The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing notices under Section 148 were barred by limitation. Whether the additions made under Section 68 were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Sh. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 7443/Del/2025
ITA No. 7444/Del/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 7443/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 7444/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Pawan Kumar Mittal (HUF), Vs Income Tax Officer, I-19, Sai Apartments, Sector-13, JAO-Ward-36(1), Rohini, New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABHP8286N Assessee by: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, CA & Sh. Rishabh Ostwal, Adv. Revenue by: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05.06.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: Theseappealsare directed against the common order dated 09.10.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)/NFAC”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the addition made of Rs.1,03,40,940 (A.Y. 2013-14) and Rs.1,16,74,165/- (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 03.05.2023 and 18.05.2023, respectively, were deleted.

2 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF 2. By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 as the appellant is the same and facts are similar and accordingly in order to avoid the repetition, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal, by dealing with the facts in ITA No. 7443/Del/2025 for assessment year 2013-14 is taken as lead case.

3.

The facts in brief as culled out from para 3 of the impugned order are as under: Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued with prior approval of the Competent Authority in the case of the assessee for the reasons there was credit transaction of Rs. 1,03,40,940/- as accommodation entry in the form of LTCG during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013-14. The assessee HUF had filed return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 11.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 3, 63,220/- U/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ITR has been filed on 20.08.2022 in which the same total income is declared. In both the returns of income so furnished, the assessee has claimed exempt LTCG of Rs.99,26,302/-on which STT was paid. The assessee HUF has not mentioned the details of business in the ITR. Notice U/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued vide DIN: ITBA/AST/F/143(2)_5/2022-23/1049911883(1) on 22/12/2022.” 4. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made in the assessment order.

5.

Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee in both the appeals, the only

3 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF difference is in amount involved. In ITA No. 7443/Del/2025, the following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order dated 09.10.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts, evidences, and detailed written submissions filed on 16.01.2025 along with a comprehensive paper book comprising 647 pages. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in recording an incorrect finding in para 3.1 (page 26 of the impugned appellate order) that "the appellant failed to furnish documentary evidence to prove that reply was uploaded on the portal on 09.06.2022", despite the fact that the said date was specifically mentioned, evidenced, and even reproduced in the same order at page 14, rendering the conclusion unsustainable liable to quashed. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and apply the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India &Ors. v. Rajeev Bansai (469 ITR 46), which was duly placed in the paper book and relied upon to demonstrate that the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation and hence void ab initio. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) further erred in not adjudicating the grounds and legal issues raised before him, and in dismissing the appeal summarily without granting effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent by initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 merely because he felt that he failed to do what he has ought to have done i.e. to issue of notice u/s 143(2) for normal scrutiny assessment. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent, without assuming jurisdiction as per law as the approval u/s 151 of the income tax act was never taken/provided by him neither for the Notice issued u/sl48 under repealed Act nor under the present Act 2021, after being repeatedly asked by the assessee and therefore the SCN u/s 148A(b) and order passed u/s 148A(d) is illegal and without jurisdiction liable to be quashed and consequently all the subsequent proceedings is void- ab- intio and illegal.

4 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF

7.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent as the respondent had passed the impugned assessment order without assuming jurisdiction as law and without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and reopening of the case is bad in law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent as the respondent had passed the impugned assessment order without complying with the mandatory requirements of section 148A(b) in compliance with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashish Agarwal to provide material and documents relied upon and therefore the order passed u/s 148A(d) is illegal and without jurisdiction liable to be quashed and consequently all the subsequent proceedings are void- ab- intio and illegal. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent as the respondent had erred in completely relying on the investigation report which was not even provided to the appellant for rebuttal. The Ld. AO has never provided any investigation report to the appellant and also opportunity of cross examination of any person whose statement was considered for making the assessment except Shri Raj Kumar Modi and even Shri Raj Kumar Modi has also deniedthe alleged statement, during the Virtual Hearing and hence his statement can also not be used against us for making the addition, hence the order passed without providing the relied upon documents for rebuttal to the appellant and without considering the outcome of the cross examination of Mr Raj Kumar Modi is liable to be quested as non est. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent as the respondent had erred in making the assessment without considering any of the submission made on facts of the case during the course of assessment and also in the virtual hearing held on 03.03.2023 to cross examine Shri Raj Kumar Modi and on 21.03.2023 on facts of the case and during the virtual hearing also, no arguments and oral submissions submitted by the Auth. Representative, was rejected and each and every submission made by the counsel of the appellant was accepted but unfortunately nothing was considered in the pre drafted illegal Template assessment

5 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF order. Hence such illegal order passed with predetermined negative mind is liable to be quashed. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent as the respondent had erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,03,40,940- of the Act by treating LTCG shown by the appellant as unexplainedcash credit and by disallowing Rs 99,07,008/- already filed as LTCG under the head income from capital gains.” 6. We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR and also examined the records. At the very outset, Ld. AR has referred page No. 1 of the paper book filed before us containing the table for calculation of time barred notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was argued that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Union of India &Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal(2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC). It was further argued that since neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the notice u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore, the notice u/s. 148 be quashed and also consequent assessment may also be quashed.

7.

We have also heard the Ld. DR who was supplied with the paper book, and after going through Page No. 1 containing the table for the calculation of time-barred notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Ld. DR has submitted that the Bench may consider the submissions with respect to the applicability of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal case (supra) in its own discretion and has prayed for restoring the file to the AO for deciding the matter afresh.

6 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have

perused the material on record. Page no. 1 of the paper book

containing the details in respect of notice dated 27.07.2022

and 29.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act being time barred is

extracted as under:

A.Y. 2013-14

Particulars Date Original Notice issued under Section 148 (Annex-1) 28th June 2021 TOLA Period Ending Date 30th June 2021 Surviving Period (A) including the day of 2 Days. Which issuance of notice and as per 4th proviso to is extended to section 149(1) i.e. 7 days to be given if the 7 Days as per period is less than 7 days. 4th proviso to section 149(1) Show Cause Notice issued under Section 148A 29th May 2022 (Annex-2) Date of Assessee’s Reply (Clock starts ticking) 9th June 2022 (Annex-3) (09.06.2022 Last Valid Date for Issuance of Notice under Section plus 7 days) 148 16-06-2022 Date of Notice under Section 148 (Annex-4) 27th July 2022

A.Y. 2014-15

Particulars Date Original Notice issued under Section 148 (Annex-1) 28th June 2021 TOLA Period Ending Date 30th June 2021 Surviving Period (A) including the day of 2 Days. Which issuance of notice and as per 4th proviso to is extended to section 149(1) i.e. 7 days to be given if the 7 Days as per period is less than 7 days. 4th proviso to section 149(1) Show Cause Notice issued under Section 148A 27th May 2022 (Annex-2) Date of Assessee’s Reply (Clock starts ticking) 9th June 2022 (Annex-3) (09.06.2022 Last Valid Date for Issuance of Notice under Section plus 7 days) 148 16-06-2022 Date of Notice under Section 148 (Annex-4) 29th July 2022

7 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF 9. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed legal ground, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings initiated under the old or un-amended provisions of section 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), are without authority of law.

10.

It was contended that for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions of section 148, as saved by the third proviso to section 149, expired on 16.06.2022. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice u/s 148 pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued on 27.07.2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) and 29.07.2022(A.Y. 2014-15), well beyond the permissible limitation.

11.

We have heard rival submissions of the parties including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notices u/s 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice

8 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF issued u/s 148 on 27.07.2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) and 29.07.2022(A.Y. 2014-15) is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpreted the interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA.

12.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation u/s 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 27.07.2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) and 29.07.2022(A.Y. 2014-15), the same is clearly barred by limitation.

13.

We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunalin the case of Sh. Deepak Agarwal vs. DCIT order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA No. 2307/Del/2025wherein notices issued on 31.07.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajeev Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings

9 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in the case of the assessee a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law which is barred by limitation since the provisions of taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) (TOLA) are not applicable for the AY 2015-16 as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. in WP(c) 2558/2023 dated 24.03.2025. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT and Others in Civil Appeal No.5177/2025 dated 02.04.2025 noted that the Revenue made a concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing off the appeal in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) (SCC) Online SC 2693, that for the AY 2015-16 notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA. Ld. Counsel also submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Nehal Rashid Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary No. (S) 57209/2024 dated 4.4.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of these decisions the reassessment framed for the AY 2015-16 based on the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022, is time barred and bad in law. 4. Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly in this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law based on which the reassessment for the AY 2015-16 was framed by the AO on 31.5.2023. The reassessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee. 6. In the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) the Jurisdictional High Court considered whether reassessment completed for the AY 2015-16 based on a notice issued u/s 148 and the viz a viz the applicability of the provisions of TOLA and based on the concession of the Revenue that for the AY 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the

10 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF period prescribed under the TOLA, held that the notice issued under 148 was beyond the period of limitation and consequently the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others (supra) quashed the notices issued u/s 148 observing as under: - “2. These appeals arise from 'the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2823, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- "1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record. 2. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1s t December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) Mo.9191 of 2022 (KailashKedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Mo.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the

11 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” 8. Above decisions squarely applies to the fact situation of the assessee and therefore respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the notices issued u/s 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for reopening the assessment for the AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment made based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, the impugned reassessment order having been made pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 the reassessment order is hereby held to be bad in law and the same is quashed. Ground Nos. B, C & D of grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.” 14. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also applying the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Sh. Deepak Agarwal (supra), we are of the opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) and 29.07.2022 (A.Y. 2014- 15) is barred by limitation as having been issued beyondthe period specified u/s 149 of the Act. Consequently, the re-

12 ITA Nos. 7443 & 7444/Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Mittal HUF assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed in both the appeals.

15.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/06/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 05/06/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →