← Back to search

K.Y.S. SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA

PDF
ITA 2092/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 November 20258 pages

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 15.07.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has made two additions of Rs. 6,89,58,168/- (u/s 69A of the Act) and addition of Rs. 2,12,87,500/- (u/s 68 of the Act). Aggrieved with this, the assessee has approached the Ld. CIT(A) were also he could not succeed on either of the issues.

2
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

1.

1 Thereafter, the assessee is seen to have approached the ITAT with several grounds but the Ld. AR pointed out that the main challenge was regard to the allegation that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond the permissible time limit and was thus time barred. It was requested by the Ld. AR that since this issue went to the root of the matter hence it should be taken for adjudication before any other issue. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR pointed out a working done regarding the date by which the Ld. AO could have issued a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act as under: “Calculation of surviving period for issue of Notice U/s148 in pursuance of Judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Rajib Bansal dated 03-10-2024.dated 03-10-2024. A) First Notice U/s148 was issued on 29-05-2021 B) Subsequent Notice U/s148A(b) was issued on 18-05-2022. C) Time allowed to reply Notice U/s148A(b) on 02-06-221(14 days). D) Surviving period as per guideline of said Supreme Court Decision (30-06-2129- 05-21)) = 32 days. Therefore, fresh 148 Notice ought to be issued as per the said order of Supreme Court within 32 days + 02-06-2022 04-07-2022. E) However, fresh Notice 148 was issued on 06-07-2022 with hand written DIN & Notice No. (without computer generated DIN/& Notice Number. F) Hence Notice U/s148 was barred by limitation.” 2.1 It was pointed out that vide the assessee’s letter dated 16.01.2025, these additional grounds were taken before the Ld. CIT(A) but this issue has not been specifically dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A). For the sake of record the said communication to the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be extracted as under:

3
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

3.

The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

4
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the records before us. It is clear that the notice u/s 148 of the Act could have been issued only by 04.07.2022 but it was actually issued on 06.07.2022. At this juncture, we need to consider the finding of the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 222/Kol/2024 &
ITA No. 1946/Kol/2024, dated 24.07.2025. “3.1. We have carefully considered this aspect and we have also gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground nos. 5 and 7 of the assessee’s appeal relate to the reopening as being bad in law as it is averred that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, since the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, having been initiated after six years from the assessment year, the assessment year in question was not covered by TOLA as admitted by the Ld. ASG in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and so held in the said judgement.
3.2. At this juncture we need to consider the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), where it has been held as under:
“52. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court held that the benefit of the new regime must be provided for the reassessment conducted for the past periods. The increase of the monetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakh is beneficial for the assessees. Mr Venkataraman has also conceded on behalf of the Revenue that all notices issued under the new regime by invoking the six year time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.
….
64. When enacting a statute, the legislature often endeavours to ensure that the provisions of one legislation do not conflict with provisions of another legislation.
Interplay (supra) [between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, 2023 INSC 1066]. The purpose of the Income-tax Act is to levy tax on income and raise revenues for the functioning of the Government. On the other hand, the purpose of TOLA is to provide relaxation of the time for completion of any actions or proceedings falling for completion within a particular period. Thus, the two enactments operate in separate and distinct fields. This Court must ensure that the provisions of the two enactments are interpreted harmoniously unless there is an irreconcilable conflict between them.
……
b. Reading TOLA into Section 149
68. After 1 April 2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions. The substituted provisions apply retrospectively for past assessment years as well. On 1 April 2021, TOLA was still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and its notifications. Therefore, for issuing a reassessment notice under section 148 after 1 April 2021, the Revenue would still have to look at: (i) the time limit specified under section 149 of the new regime; and (ii) the time limit for issuance of notice as extended by TOLA and its notifications.
The Revenue cannot extend the operation of the old law under TOLA, but it can certainly benefit from the extended time limit for completion of actions falling for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021. 69. For instance, Section 149(1)(a) of the new regime specified the time limit of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for reopening of the assessment.
For assessment year 2017-2018, the three year period expired on 31 March
2021. The expiry of time fell within the time period contemplated by Section 3
of TOLA read with its notifications. Resultantly, the Revenue had time until 30

5
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

June 2021 to issue a reassessment notice for assessment year 2017-2018 under section 149(1)(a). This harmonious reading gives effect to the legislative intention of both the Income-tax Act and TOLA. Moreover, Sections 147 to 151
are machinery provisions. Therefore, they must be given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income-tax Act.
……
74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime:
(i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under section 151
of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus:
(i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief
Commissioner or Director General.
76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume juri iction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the juri iction of the authority to grant sanction.
Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their juri iction to issue a notice under section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31
March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has an extended time till
30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is:
if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March
2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has time till

6
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March
2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of TOLA.
Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages:
a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act
2022;33
c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice.
80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b)." Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under section 151 for Section 148A(b). It is well established that this Court while exercising its juri iction under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law High Court Bar Association v. State of U P [2024] 160 taxmann.com 32/299
Taxman 21 (SC)/[2024] 6 SCC 267. 81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned." Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime
"after following the procedure as required under section 148-A." Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.
F. Section 148 notices issued in June-September 2022
i. Scope of Article 142
113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under section 149(1).
In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-
2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. To assume juri iction to issue notices under section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the 7
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

authority specified under section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the juri iction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred.
G. Conclusions
114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:
a. After 1 April 2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income-tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income- tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income-tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under section 148; d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021
to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021; g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;”

Accordingly, we hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued letter than permissible time of 04.07.2022 and thus consequently proceedings resulting in assessment order which are not legally tenable.
4.1
Since the assessee has succeeded on the ground of assumption of juri iction itself hence, we do not deem it fit to adjudicate on the merits of the case.

8
K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

5.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 21.11.2025 (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21.11.2025 AK, Sr. P.S.

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

5.

CIT(DR)

////
By order

K.Y.S. SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA | BharatTax