JOHN JACOB,QATAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(1)(2) , CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.- 97/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] John Jacob, ACIT, Building No.-79, Zone Number 40, Circle International Tax 2(1)(1), 820/ All Bin Abi Talib, Kottayam, Vs Civic Centre, Minto Road, 686010. New Delhi-110002. PAN- APZPJ6366C Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Sikhar Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi-43, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 16.02.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT (Int. Tax.), Circle-2(1)(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2015-16. 1

IT(IT)A No.- 97/Del/2025 John Jacob 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in initiating, sustaining and affirming the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16, and the impugned reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, and the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the same, inasmuch as the foundational facts and material allegedly suggesting escapement of income were neither disclosed nor established therein, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the order u/s 148A(d) dated 11.04.2022, and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the same, without recording or establishing that the alleged time deposits of ₹1,95,58,648/- pertained to taxable income, and without demonstrating satisfaction of the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 4. That the sanction granted u/s 151 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s 148 is invalid in law, having been accorded in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, and the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming such defective sanction, thereby vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings. 5. That on the facts and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in determining the total income of the appellant at ₹1,95,58,648/-, and the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same, despite the fact that the interest income, if any, was earned on deposits held in a Non-Resident External (NRE) account and is expressly exempt under section 10(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as no income chargeable to tax exceeding the statutory threshold is shown to have escaped assessment, and the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) erred in assuming and upholding jurisdiction beyond the prescribed time-limit. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating renewal of existing fixed deposits as fresh unexplained investment for the Assessment Year 2015-16, and the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the same, despite the fact that no new credit or investment was introduced during the year and the impugned amount merely represented renewal of old fixed deposits. 8. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in acting upon unverified information allegedly received from the Insight Portal without conducting any independent enquiry or verification, including failure to exercise powers u/s 133(6) of the Act, and the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment so framed. 2

IT(IT)A No.- 97/Del/2025 John Jacob 9. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction after transfer of the case from International Taxation Circle (1)(1)(2) to International Taxation Circle (2)(1)(2) without recording reasons or following the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 127 of the Act, and the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming such jurisdictional irregularity. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.”

IT(IT)A No.- 97/Del/2025 John Jacob 4.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is seen that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated for A.Y. 2015- 16 vide notice u/s 148 issued on 11.04.2022 which is not a valid notice issued beyond prescribed time limit. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it was conceded by the Ld. ASG on behalf of Revenue that no notice u/s 148 could be issued for A.Y. 2015-16 after 31.03.2022 (on expiry of 6 years). The relevant observations in this regard are reproduced below: “19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID- 19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income-tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (8) the first proviso to Section 149 and (1) that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and ( the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re assessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under section 3(1) of TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained the specified Act." Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income- tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime, e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 4

IT(IT)A No.- 97/Del/2025 John Jacob and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

Assessment Within 3 years Expiry of Within six Expiry of Year Limitation read Years limitation read with TOLA for (2) with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31.03.2017 TOLA not 31.03.2020 30-6-2021 applicable 2014-15 31-3-2018 TOLA not 31.03.2021 30-6-2021 applicable 2015-16 31-3-2019 TOLA not 31.03.2022 TOLA not applicable applicable 2016-17 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-18 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not applicable

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; 9. Section 2 of TOLA defines "specified Act" to mean and include the Income-tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income T a x Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra).”

4.2 In view of above, we hereby quash the notice u/s 148 dated 11.04.2022 issued for

A.Y. 2015-16 after 31.03.2022 (after expiry of 6 years) . Since the reassessment proceedings

have been quashed, all the remaining grounds are rendered academic and hence not being

adjudicated upon.

IT(IT)A No.- 97/Del/2025 John Jacob 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 05.06.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,