SHRI GANGA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 640/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ganga Sahkari Awas Samiti Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ltd, Infront of New Mandi, Sanjay Place, Agra- 282002 Farrukhabad Road, Etawah-206001 PAN : AAQAS2044F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sushil Kumar Maheshwari, CA Department by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 15.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.09.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10254267 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2. At the outset, we notice that, according to registry’s report, the assessee filed this second appeal on 24.08.2026 against the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 by a delay of about 9 days. The reasons mentioned in assessee’s application for condonation of delay are that, the appellant assessee’s previous counsel was busy, looking after her father, who was

ITA No.640/Agr/2026 seriously ill during the relevant period and admitted to the hospital, requiring counsel’s extreme care, so the appeal could not be attended to effectively by the counsel. This apart, the assessee had engaged another counsel for looking into his matter but unfortunately the newly engaged counsel suffered an eye-related ailment and was advised bed rest for a considerable time, thus the appeal could not be filed within time. Prayed to condone the delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, we treat the aforesaid cause as sufficient and condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee is a non filer, the case was reopened on the basis of information received from the insight portal that the credits aggregating to Rs. 50,70,425/- were found in the bank account of the assessee during the A.Y. 2015-16. Further unaccounted and undisclosed profits amounting to Rs. 2,76,65,260/- were also identified and the total amount of Rs. 3,27,35,685/- was considered as income chargeable to tax escaped assessment. The order u/s 148A(d) was passed. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant who did not file any return in response thereof. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. The appellant assessee remained non compliant to the various opportunities provided by the assessing officer, hence the assessing officer proceeded ex parte and completed best judgment assessment making additions of Rs. 50,70,425/- as unexplained bank credit u/s 69A and Rs.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.640/Agr/2026 2,76,65,260/- as unaccounted and undisclosed profits u/s 68 of the Act, vide ex parte assessment order dated 04.05.2023 made u/s 147/144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee, preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte. 5. Appellant assessee has raised following grounds under this second appeal: “1. Because the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law, contrary to the facts borne out by the record and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and in confirming the order of assessment dated 04.05.2023 in its entirety. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16, which are wholly unsustainable in view of the categorical concession made on behalf of the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and recorded at paragraph 19(f) of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), namely that for Assessment Year 2015-16 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 TOLA; and the notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 and the notice under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 both falling on or after that date, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the order under section 148A(d) dated 30.07.2022 and the assessment order dated 04.05.2023 cannot survive, and ought to have quashed the same. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of the proceedings, which rested upon borrowed satisfaction and upon a total non- application of mind, the Assessing Officer having acted solely upon the report of the Investigation Wing and upon the flagging of the case on the Insight Portal, without any independent enquiry of his own and without any enquiry of the bank under section 133(6) or of the members of the society whose particulars were on record; and the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that deposits into and withdrawals from the bank account of a housing society do not "suggest" escapement of income, receipts not being synonymous with income, and that the non-filing of a return, upon which the reopening was originally founded, is no longer a deeming ground of escapement under the regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. 4. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order passed under clause (d) of section 148A, which is a non-speaking order, in that it neither addresses nor rebuts the doctrine of mutuality urged by the appellant, nowhere deals with the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 in which the identical claim was accepted, and discards the source-wise break-up of the credits and the bank statement filed by the appellant upon a bare suspicion of fabrication without the appellant having been confronted with that suspicion; and the learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that in embarking upon an adjudication of the genuineness and evidentiary worth of the 3 | P a g e

ITA No.640/Agr/2026 appellant's audited books at that preliminary stage the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the limited scope of the enquiry contemplated by section 148A. 5. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of assessment dated 04.05.2023, which was passed in undue haste and in violation of the principles of natural justice and of the scheme of faceless assessment under section 144B of the Act, the adjournment sought on account of the death of the mother-in-law of the President of the society, who resided with him and who looks after its affairs, having been declined although nearly eleven months of the period of limitation prescribed by section 153 then remained, that period expiring only on 31.03.2024; and the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to redress that breach in the exercise of his coterminous powers under sections 250(4) and 251 of the Act. 6. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,70,425/- under section 69A of the Act, notwithstanding the factual misconception underlying it, the Assessing Officer having described the sum added as cash deposited by the appellant when the information relied upon speaks only of aggregate credits in the bank account, without any bifurcation as between cash deposits, clearing entries, inter- account transfers, reversals and refunds; and the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to hold that, in any event, the gross aggregate of credits could not be assessed as income, at the highest only the income element embedded therein being assessable, and that the addition of the whole of the credits without adjusting the corresponding debits, refunds and rotational entries and without applying the theory of peak credit is arbitrary and excessive. 7. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,76,65,260/- under section 68 of the Act, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case and has been made on the basis of material collected at the back of the appellant without giving any proper opportunity to rebut the same. 8. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the plea of mutuality as a bald assertion, without examining the bye-laws, the audited accounts and the membership records of the society,, and in failing to appreciate that the appellant is a mutual concern, being a co-operative housing society which purchased land out of the contributions of its members and allotted plots exclusively to its members, the contributors to and the participators in the common fund being identical, so that its receipts are not liable to tax upon the doctrine of mutuality, 9. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the rule of consistency, the identical issue, arising upon the identical material and in relation to the very same bank account, having stood concluded in favour of the appellant for assessment year 2013-14, where reassessment proceedings initiated upon the same advice of the Investigation Wing culminated in an order accepting the appellant's mutual character and making no addition in respect of the deposits; and there having been no change whatever in the facts or in the law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that a contrary view could not be taken for the year under consideration. 10. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that, without prejudice to the above, the amounts received from members towards the allotment of plots are capital receipts, or in any event advances carrying a corresponding obligation and liability in the hands of the appellant, and are not income chargeable to tax under any provision of the Act. 11. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disposing of the appeal without affording to the appellant a proper, adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and in deciding the appeal in a summary manner without adjudicating the several 4 | P a g e

ITA No.640/Agr/2026 grounds raised before him, the impugned order being to that extent non-speaking and unsustainable. 12. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, the levy whereof is denied and is in any event consequential; and has further erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act, which is bad in law, no satisfaction as contemplated by law having been recorded. ….…………” 6. Perused the records. Heard ld AR for the appellant assessee and ld CIT DR for the respondent revenue. 7. Appellant assessee has though raised as many as 13 grounds. However, ld AR has pressed on the legal ground no. 2, stating that the present case pertains to A.Y. 2015-16, hence the notice u/s 148 dated 29.06.2021 and the notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 both do not fall for completion during the period prescribed for TOLA, thus barred by limitation in view of Apex Court’s judgment passed in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). 8. Undisputedly, the instant case relates to A.Y. 2015-16. Assessing Officer initially issued notice dated 29.06.2021 u/s. 148 of the Act. The Finance Act, 2021 substituted section 147 to 151 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and sections 147 to 151 of the old law ceased to operate from 01.04.2021. The Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) specifically observed that after 01.04.2021, any reference to the Income Tax Act means the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and held that the time limit prescribed for issuing reassessment notice u/s. 149 operate retrospectively for three years for all situation and six years in case the 5 | P a g e

ITA No.640/Agr/2026 escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than Rs. 50 lacs. In the instant case, it is not disputed that consequent upon the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the Assessing Officer finally issued fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022 under the new regime, which is beyond the period of limitation for the present A.Y. 2015-16. 9. It is relevant to refer paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), which sets out the concession as made on behalf of the Revenue. “19. a. ………………….. b. ………………….. c. …………………… d. ………………….. 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, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Within 3 Expiry of Limitation Within 6 Expiry of Year years read with TOLA for years limitation read (2) with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31.03.2017 TOLA not 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 applicable 2014-2015 31.03.2018 TOLA not 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 applicable 2015-2016 31.03.2019 TOLA not 31.03.2022 TOLA not applicable applicable 2016-2017 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not applicable

6 | P a g e

ITA No.640/Agr/2026 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; ……………….” 10. It is now crystal clear from the aforesaid decision of apex court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) that all notices relevant to the assessment year 2015-16 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 taxation and other laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). In the instant case, the initial notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued under old regime on 29.06.2021 which will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. The subsequent notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 shall accordingly fall beyond the period of limitation, hence, time barred and bad in law. All consequential assessment proceedings are accordingly quashed. Aforesaid issue is thus determined in favour of the assessee. The other factual and legal grounds are mere academic in nature, hence need not be adjudicated upon and are left open. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 28.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 28.09.2026 7 | P a g e

ITA No.640/Agr/2026

*Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

8 | P a g e