INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. KIRANSINGH MANGILAL SINGH RAJPUROHIT, BHIWANDI

The cross-objection filed by the assessee is delayed by 101 days. Alongwith the cross-objection, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, submitting as follows: - “Reg: Request for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2015-16. In connection with the above I respectfully submit as under: Sir/s, I respectfully seek to file cross objections in Form 36A (i.e. Memorandum of Cross Objection) in response to appeal filed by the department. Sir/s, I am aware of the fact that as per the provisions of See 253 of the I.T. Act, 1961, cross objection has to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. However, I may respectfully submit that I am in the receipt of Form 36 (Memo of Appeal), along with ground as raised by department only on 16/03/2026, after requesting the same to the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai and the Ld. DR vide my letter dated 12/03/2026. Sir/s, that the delay in filing of cross objections is neither intentional nor deliberate but because of delayed receipt of Form 36 which is beyond my control. Sir/s, it is requested that the delay in filing of cross objections may please be condoned and oblige.”

Considering the assessee’s submission and material placed on the record, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the cross-objection within the prescribed

In its cross-objection, the assessee has raised the ground, inter alia, challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Since this is a jurisdictional issue, which goes to the root of the matter, we are considering the same at the outset. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act in the present case is beyond the limitation period specified under section 149(1) of the Act, and thus, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144 read with section 144B of the Act is void ab initio.

The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration, filed his return of income on 13/02/2016, declaring an income of Rs. 5,11,920. On the basis of information received from the Disseminated Information Risk Assessment Committee (DIARC), it was observed that the assessee, during the year, sold land for a total consideration of Rs. 5.40 crore, which has not been declared in the return of income. Accordingly, on the basis of the said information, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee and a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 05/05/2021.

Thereafter, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal, reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), the original

In the absence of any reply from the assessee, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 13/07/2022, declaring that it is a fit case for the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act after considering the material available on record. On the very same date, i.e. on 13/07/2022, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Vide order dated 25/05/2023 passed under section 147 r.w. section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) computed capital gains of Rs. 2,71,72,500 on the sale of land by the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 1,58,06,761 under section 69A of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the grounds raised by the assessee and deleted the additions made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. While the assessee has filed the cross-objection challenging the jurisdiction invoked under section 147 of the Act.

During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the year under consideration is the assessment year 2015-16, and therefore, the limitation period available with the Assessing Officer under section 149 of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act was till 31/03/2022, and therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 13/07/2022 is

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We, at the outset, find that similar issue pertaining to the challenge against notices issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 on the basis that same are beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 149 of the Act has been decided in favour of the taxpayers after noting the submission of the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), wherein it was conceded by the Revenue that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“the TOLA”). We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pratishtha Garg vs. ACIT, reported in (2015) 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi), allowed the writ petition filed by the taxpayer

We further find that similar findings were rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in W.P.(C) No.17639 of 2022, vide order dated 13/12/2024. We find that in the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, on similar lines, re-assessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 were quashed: -  ACIT vs. Manish Financials, ITA No.5050 and 5055/Mum/2024 order dated 02/12/2024.  ITO vs. Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.4812/mum/2024, order dated 07/09/2024.

We further find that vide order dated 04/04/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah, in SLP (C) Diary No.57209 of 2024, upheld the quashing of the reassessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2015-16 considering the submissions of the Revenue as recorded in paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) of the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra). Similar findings were rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd vs. CBDT, reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC).

Therefore, it is evident that the Hon’ble Courts, consistently considering the submissions made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), have held that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Thus, on this limited basis alone, the notice dated 13/07/2022, issued under section 148 of the Act in the present case, is liable to be quashed, as time- barred under the provisions of the Act. We order accordingly. Consequently,

Consequently, the grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeal are rendered infructuous and, therefore, are dismissed.

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/05/2026