MAIYAPPAN PALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC-2,, COIMBATORE

The Ld.AR Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate requested to take up ground nos. 2,3 & 4 as the same goes to the root of the case challenging the action of Ld.AO assuming the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the act. He submits that the Ld.AO initiated reassessment proceedings in consequence to decision dated 04.05.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal and drew our attention to the page no.2 of the pager book volume-1. Accordingly, issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 26.05.2022. In consequence to the same, notice u/s 148 of the act was issued on 15.07.2022 and drew our attention to the page no.12 of the paper book volume-1. He argued vehemently that the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the act in passing reassessment order u/s 147 of the act without justification. Further, he argued that the NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction not sustainable both on facts and in law in view of Revenue’s concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 469 ITR 46 required in para no.19f. He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 at page no.26 of paper book volume-2 and drew our attention to the para no.19 at page no.39 and submits that the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India made submission on behalf of revenue that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not call for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA for AY 2015-16 under para.f. Further, he drew our attention tabulation below para.e at page no.40 of paper book volume - 2 and submits that for AY 2015-16 TOLA is not applicable within three years as on 31.03.2019 as well as within six years as on 31.03.2022. He submits that the respondent revenue clearly conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which the Ld. DR has no jurisdiction to controvert the same. Further, he referred to page no.68 of the paper book volume-2 in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited reported in 476 ITR 369 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded clearly that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 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 Page - 2 - of 7 By taking into the concession in para no.19.f in the case of act 2020). Rajiv Bansal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.06.2021. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the same view in the case of Nehal Ashit Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary no(s).57209 / 2024 and drew attention to the page no.71 of the paper book volume-2.

The Ld. DR Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT vehemently argued that w.r.t para 19f is only a submission but not a concession made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the revenue. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its finding in para nos.93 and 94 of the said judgement. He submits the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware of the fact that it could not have used its jurisdiction under Article-142 to affect the vested right of the assessees by deeming section 148 notices under the old regime as section 148 notices under the new regime. He further submits it deemed the reassessment notices issued under the old regime as show cause notices u/s 148A(b) of the new regime. He argued that the Supreme Court directed the revenue to provide all the relevant material or information to the assessees and thereafter allow the assessees to respond to the show cause notice by availing all the defenses, including those available u/s 149 of the act. He argued vehemently that the Supreme Court balanced the equities between the revenue and the assessees by giving effect to the legislative scheme of reassessment as contained under the new regime and it supplemented the existing legal frame work of the procedure of reassessment under the income tax act with the remedy grounded in equitable standards. Further he argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the important

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to record the submissions made on behalf of respondent revenue in paragraph-19 and submissions on behalf of assessee in paragraph-20 of the said judgment. On careful reading of the submissions w.r.t AY 2015-16 vide para-f, it is noted that the revenue categorically considered that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they did not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. It was submitted that once the first proviso-2 section 149(1)(b) r.w. TOLA, then all the notices issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 pertaining to AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabular form therein. On further reading of the period of limitation as explained in the tabular form, it clearly shows for AY 2015-16 the TOLA is not applicable as on period of limitation within three years as on 31.03.2019. Further, it was also submitted the TOLA is not applicable for the period of six years limitation as on 31.03.2022. Accordingly, the revenue conceded that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA for AY 2015-16. But the Ld. DR before us controverted the same as it was not a concession, was only a submission by referring to para nos.93 and 94 of the said judgment. On careful reading of the para no.93, it is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct respondent revenue to provide all the material or information to the assessees and thereafter allowed the assessees to respondent to the show cause notice by availing all the defenses including those available u/s 149 of the act. In

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 29th April-2026 at Chennai.