SKF INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), , MUMBAI

Thereafter, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal, reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), the original notice issued under section 148 on 12/04/2021 was deemed to be issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Vide show cause notice dated 30/05/2022, the information and material relied upon by the Revenue was provided to the assessee and time was granted to the assessee to respond within two weeks in terms of the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act.

After rejecting the objections filed by the assessee, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29/07/2022, declaring that it is a fit case for the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. On the very same date, i.e. on 29/07/2022, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The draft assessment order was passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 342,36,42,560. In compliance with the directions issued by the learned DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act, the final assessment order, under section 147 read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act, was passed on 26/03/2024. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the year under consideration is assessment year 2015-16, and therefore, the limitation period available with the Assessing Officer under section 149 of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act was till 31/03/2022, and therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29/07/2022 is barred by limitation. Hence, it was submitted that the entire re-assessment proceedings culminating in the order passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act are void ab initio. The learned AR by placing reliance upon various judicial pronouncements, submitted that a similar challenge in respect of the assessment year 2015-16 has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, and the issue was decided in favour of the taxpayer, inter alia, by considering the submission of the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC).

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We, at the outset, find that similar issue pertaining to the challenge against notices issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 on the basis that same are beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 149 of the Act has been decided in favour of the taxpayers after noting the submission of the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), wherein it was conceded by the Revenue that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“the TOLA”). We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pratishtha Garg vs. ACIT, reported in (2015) 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi), allowed the writ petition filed by the taxpayer and set aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16, by observing as follows: - “2. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the prayers made by the petitioner are required to be allowed as the same are covered by the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, 2024 INSC 754, as recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of the said decision. He also submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had, after not ing the aforesaid concession, allowed a similar petition - Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle: W.P.(C) 17639/2022 by order dated 13.12.2024.

We further find that similar findings were rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in W.P.(C) No.17639 of 2022, vide order dated 13/12/2024. We find that in the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, on similar lines, re-assessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 were quashed: -  ACIT vs. Manish Financials, and 5055/Mum/2024 order dated 02/12/2024.  ITO vs. Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd., order dated 07/09/2024.

We further find that vide a recent order dated 04/04/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah, in SLP (C) Diary No.57209 of 2024, upheld the quashing of the re-assessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2015-16 considering the submissions of the Revenue as recorded in paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) of the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

Therefore, it is evident that the Hon’ble Courts, consistently considering the submissions made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), have held that the re-assessment notice issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Thus, on this limited basis alone, the notice dated 29/07/2022, issued under section 148 of the Act in the present case, is liable to be quashed, being time- barred under the provisions of the Act. We order accordingly. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and final assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act are also quashed.

Since the relief has been granted to the assessee on the afore-noted jurisdictional aspect, the other grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are rendered academic and, therefore, are left open.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/05/2025