LOKESH KUMAR GOYAL, SRIGANGANAGAR,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 653/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year – 2015-16) LOKESH KUMAR GOYAL, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SRIGANGANAGAR SRIGANGANAGAR 106, RAJENDRA JAIN, AKSHAYDEEP COMPLEX, 5TH B ROAD, SARDARPURA, JODHPUR- 342001 PAN NO. AAAHL 1533 R Appellant by Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate (Virtually) Revenue by Ms. Prerna Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR (Virtually) Date of Hearing 17 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 27 / 10 / 2026.

ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the

order dated 23.03.2026 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred

as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for the sake of

convenience, hereinafter referred to as NFAC] by which appeal filed by the

assessee was dismissed.

2 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 2. Facts of the case are that, the appellant filed return of income for AY

2015-16 on 22/09/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,87,400/-. It was widely

reported in media and specific information was received regarding rampant tax

evasion through coordinated and premeditated trading in illiquid stocks and on

'options' in the Bombay Stock Exchange. On receiving above information, it is

noticed that the appellant indulged in trading in reversal trades in BSE stock

options as per SEBI to book bogus loss of Rs. 2,24,69,000/- for FY 2014-15,

relevant to AY 2015-16. The case was reopened, as there was suspicion, that

income had escaped assessment. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1),143(2) and 148

of the Act were issued time to time and after completion of proceedings total

income of the appellant computed by the Learned AO as Rs.2,29,60,672/-,

which was assailed by way of appeal and the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the

same and aggrieving from the impugned order, appellant before us by present

appeal.

record.

3 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 4. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Learned AR submitted that the

Learned CIT(A) erroneously upheld reassessment proceedings initiated u/s

147/148 of the Act, without appreciated that the notice dated 31-03-2021 was

served on 01-04-2021 i.e. after amendment by Finance Act, 2021, which is

beyond the prescribed legal framework and only on this point, unsustainable in

law.

authorities.

ordinate bench, in the case of M/s Navyug Eduventure Private Ltd. ITA

No.3524/Del/2025 & C.O.271/Del/2025, dated 15.04.2026, in which held that

the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the proof of email issued to the

assessee and sending time stamp is 1st April, 2021 as per ITBA document,

which reflects that the notice has been issued on 1st April, 2021. The learned

CIT-DR could not controvert or place any document to demonstrate that the

requirement of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31st March,

4 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 2021 i.e., the same date as it was digitally signed, was fulfilled. Since the date

of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is 1st April, 2021, the notice

under Section 148 of the Act can be construed as having been issued under

Section 148A(b) of the Act under the provisions of Section 148 of the Act as

inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021, as held by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal -

[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC). But, the Learned AO has to follow necessary process laid

down in the amended provisions u/s 148A of the Act. The amended provisions

of Section 148 and 148A of the Act mandate conducting of an enquiry if

required u/s 148A(a) of the Act and providing an opportunity of being heard to

the assessee u/s 148A(b) of the Act and passing of an order under Section

148A(d) of the Act after taking due approval from specified authority before

issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is necessary, which is missing in the

present case. Hence, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 1st April, 2021 is

barred by limitation and without following Section 148 is invalid and bad in

law.

5 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 7. The Learned AR further relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court in Suman jeet Agarwal versus ITO, in which held that the mere

generation of a notice on the ITBA portal or its digital signing does not amount

to issuance of the notice. The Court specifically examined the manner in which

the ITBA system operates and distinguished between generation/digital signing

of the notice and the subsequent triggering/dispatch of the e-mail. It was held

that dispatch is a sine qua non for issuance of an electronic notice for the

purposes of Section 149. Consequently, where the notice was dispatched on or

after 01.04.2021, it could not be treated as having been issued on 31.03.2021.

taxmann.com 360 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the aforesaid

principle and held, in the context of electronic notices dated 31.03.2021, that

mere digital signing does not amount to issuance; the notice is regarded as

issued when it is actually e- mailed/dispatched to the assessee.

Allahabad High Court in Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India,

6 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 [2022] taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that merely drawing

up and digitally signing a notice on 31.03.2021, in the absence of its dispatch,

would not amount to issuance of the notice within the meaning of Section 149

and the date on which the electronically signed notice is

transmitted/dispatched assumes significance for determining the date of

issuance.

(2024)465 ITR 729 (Telangana) (HC), on identical issue, it was observed that the

last date for service of notice and initiating proceedings under section 148 of

the Act was coming to an end on March 31, 2021 and in the majority of the

cases, the notice was dated March 31, 2021 but had been issued from the

office of the Department either on April 1, 2021 or on subsequent dates, on

writ petitions contending that the notices were barred by limitation, allowing

the petitions, that all the notices u/s 148, had been issued (not served) on April

1st, 2021 or on a later date. The question of service of these notices and the

date of service of notices upon the assessees was of no relevance or

7 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 consequence since the notices had been dispatched from the Department on

or after April 1, 2021 which itself was beyond the period of limitation. It was

held that all the notices issued under section 148, dated March 31, 2021, were

barred by limitation under sections 148 and 149, since these notices had left

the Income-tax Business Application portal on or after April 1, 2021 and

therefore, were unsustainable.

assessment year 2015-16, in which notice u/s 148 bears the date 31.03.2021

and respondent on ITBA/E-mail record establishes that the notice was

dispatched only on 01.04.2021 and appellant has sufficient documentary

evidence in the Form of ITBA Portal Screenshot and E-mail record which

specifically records on 01.04.2021 as the date of dispatch and as the notice

was not issued/dispatched within the limitation prescribed under the law

applicable upto 31.03.2021. The subsequent receipt of the notice by the

appellant cannot cure the fundamental effect that the notice itself was

dispatched only on 01.04.2021 and respondent cannot take advantage all

8 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16 these fact that the notice was generated or digitally signed on 21.03.2021

when its own record establishes that the notice was actually dispatched only

on 01.04.2021 and as mentioned above, the notice u/s 148 is barred by

limitation and without jurisdiction and all proceedings initiated pursuant

thereto including the reassessment order liable to be quashed. For ready

reference, view notices for E-proceedings as under:

9 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16

appellant and fact situation as mentioned hereinbefore, we find material

substance therein and we have no hesitation to conclude and hold that the

notice in question u/s 148 barred by limitation and lacks jurisdiction, so all

proceedings initiated pursuant thereto liable to be quashed and appeal is

deserves to be allowed. As we dispose off appeal as above, other grounds does

not required specific adjudication.

10 ITA No. 653/Jodh/2Asst. Year: 2015-16

Order pronounced on 27/10/2026 in Open Court

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 27/10/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 10:58:33 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench