BRD FORGINGS & MACHINING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 2365 /KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2017-18 BRD Forgings & Machining....................................................................................Appellant 24, Room No- 13/1A,, 2st Floor, N S Road, West Bengal- 700001 [PAN No. AAMFB4274D]

Vs. Income Tax Officer.........................................................,..……………....……….Respondent Ward- 30(1), Kolkata Appearances by: Sunil Surana, FCA., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, SR. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: September 01, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: October 30 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.12.2024 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147r.w.s144 of the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the very outset, it appears form the report of the Registry the appeal filed by the assessee after a delay of 488 days. Assessee filed a petition supported with an affidavit to condone the delay. The Ld. AR submits that delay in filing the appeal was unintentional as the relevant case record were misplaced from the office due to which the appeal could not be drafted. The

ITA No.2365/Kol/2026 Ld. AR praise that appeal of the assessee be decided on merit after condoning the delay. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the petition as well as considering the several judgments of the Apex Court, delay is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee here in after appellant is a Firm. The appellant has made bogus sale and purchase by accommodation entries of non-genuine sale and purchase with various parties during the Financial Year 2016-17 related to the Assessment Year 2017-18 amounting to Rs.1.57,33,057/ the appellant filed return of income for the A.Y.2017-18,but the appellant did not disclose properly the sale and purchase amount of Rs. 1.57.33.057/-in his ITR for the A.Y 2017-18. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 and accordingly notices were issued & served upon the appellant. The case was assessed u/s 147/144B of the IT Act at Rs. 52.26.751/- making an addition of Rs. 51.06,281/- on account of the books of the appellant are not correct hence the same is rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and profit at the rate of 8% of turnover is estimated . Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 3. The Ld. AR in course of argument raised a legal ground thereby submitting that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 is barred by limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in case of Rajeev Bansal, reported in 469 ITR page 46. Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order. 4. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the record following facts have been emerged: - 2

ITA No.2365/Kol/2026 EVENT AY 2018-19 First Notice u/s 148 of the Act under old regime 28.06.2021 As per the order of the SC in Rajeev Bansal, the learned AO 2 days had 5 surviving days time to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act under new regime (day between 28-06.2021 and 30.06.2021) Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act issued 31.05.2022 Tie given to assessee to reply was 14 days which expires on 14.06.2022 (Third proviso to section 14991). Now 5th) Surviving Time of 2 days (28-06-2021-30-06-2021) expires 16-06-2022 on which is the time barring date for issue of notice u/s 148 Notice u/s 148 of the Act under new regime issued on 26-07-2022

4.1. On perusal of the aforesaid facts we find that in the present case surviving period of issuance of the first notice u/s 148 of the Act and the tola period comes to two days only. The notice u/s 148AB was issued on 21.03.2022, time given to assessee to reply was 14 days that expires on 14.06.2022. Adding the “2” surviving days the assessment financial date for the Revenue to issue new notice was on 16.06.2022, but in the present case notice was issued on 26.07.2022, it exceeded the permissible limitation by over a month. 5. Keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court notices issued beyond the surviving period are invalid. Accordingly notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 is hereby quashed. Consequently all the proceedings are also thereby quashed. In the result the appeal of the assessee be allowed on legal issue. 3

ITA No.2365/Kol/2026

Kolkata, the 30th October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 30. 10.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 11:52:47 +05'30'

ITA No.2365/Kol/2026

ITA No.2365/Kol/2026