DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR CIRCLE, HISAR, HISAR vs. TAYAL SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

“5. DECISION: Additional Ground of Appeal

– The appellant has challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in its case contending that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 03.04.2022, ie., after 01.04.2021, is bad in law as it will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA and in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal. 5.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998]

97. Taxman 358 (SC) has held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arose from the fact as found by the Income-tax authorities and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. While deciding in the case of NTPC (supra), the Hon’ble SC relied upon its own decision in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while dealing with the powers of the AAC observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the AAC in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the ITO. The Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The AAC must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The AAC should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. As in the appellant’s case this question of law arises from the facts of the case with regard to date of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and various judicial pronouncements governing the issue, it is felt that the additional ground raised by the appellant deserves to be admitted. 5.1.1 The appellant claims that the notice issued by the JAO on 03.04.2022, being beyond 31.03.2022, needs to be dropped and the entire proceedings need to be quashed. The appellant has placed its reliance on the 2 | P a g e decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the following cases:

1. Lalit Gulati v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi)

2. Chandra Prakash Srivastava vs ITO, Ward 1(1), Delhi in Writ Petition (C) 5893/2023, dated 30.05.2025. 5.1.2 It is seen that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 03.04.2022. In a decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded in paragraph 19(f) of the said decision. Paragraphs 19 (e) and 19(f) of the said decision are relevant and are set out below: - "(e) The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of the 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 the assessment years 2013-2014, 20142015, 20152016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

Assessment Within 3 Within six Expiry of Expiry Years Years Limitation Year Limitation read with TOLA read with for (2) (4) (1) TOLA for (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31.03.2017 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 2014-2015 31.03.2018 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 2015-2016 31.03.2019 31.03.2022 TOLA not 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

(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, 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 the TOLA." It is also noted that in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)/Civil Appeal No.5177/2025, decided on 02.04.2025, 3 | P a g e arising from orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and Cuttack declining to entertain batch of petitions filed by the assesses, attention of the Hon’ble Court was drawn to the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and noting the same, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: "4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three-judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC On Line SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 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."

raised by the appellant is allowed.”

3. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has gone by the Revenue’s concession even before the hon’ble supreme court that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for assessment year 2015-16 “will have to be dropped”.

This is what made the learned CIT(A)/NFAC to quash the impugned reopening which hardly calls for any interference on our part. The Revenue fails in its instant sole substantive ground therefore.