SOFIA TWIST AND TEXT PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-2018, raising following grounds:

1. The Ld Assessing Officer has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in issuing notice u/s.148 without proper sanction as per section 151.

2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.3,69,220/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act.

2.1 The notice u/s.148 may be quashed. The notice u/s.148 may be quashed. 2.2 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)-NFAC deleted. may be kindly NFAC deleted. may be kindly 2.3 Personal hearing may be granted. ersonal hearing may be granted. 2.4 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 3. appellant craves leave to add, a ce any or all of the above appellant craves leave to add, a ce any or all of the above appellant craves leave to add, a ce any or all of the above grounds.

2.1 The said ground, being purely legal in character and going The said ground, being purely legal in character and going The said ground, being purely legal in character and going to the root of the matter, was admitted for adjudication, in to the root of the matter, was admitted for adjudication, in to the root of the matter, was admitted for adjudication, in consonance with the settled princip consonance with the settled principle that a legal plea touching le that a legal plea touching upon the jurisdiction of the authority may be raised at any stage upon the jurisdiction of the authority may be raised at any stage upon the jurisdiction of the authority may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not necessitate fresh of the proceedings, provided it does not necessitate fresh of the proceedings, provided it does not necessitate fresh investigation of facts. investigation of facts.

3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed on record has also placed on record a tabulated chronolo a tabulated chronology delineating the sequence of events gy delineating the sequence of events concerning the issuance of notice and the assessee’s response concerning the issuance of notice and the assessee’s response concerning the issuance of notice and the assessee’s response thereto, which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under:

3.2 Referring to the said chronology, it was submitted that the Referring to the said chronology, it was submitted that the Referring to the said chronology, it was submitted that the assessee had duly filed his response under Section assessee had duly filed his response under Section assessee had duly filed his response under Section 148A(b) on 26.05.2022, and upon applying the two , and upon applying the two-week survival period week survival period permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal Ashish Agarwal (supra), the last permissible date for issuance of notice under (supra), the last permissible date for issuance of notice under (supra), the last permissible date for issuance of notice under Section 148 would be Section 148 would be 12.06.2022. However, in the present case, . However, in the present case, the impugned notice was issued on the impugned notice was issued on 29.06.2022, which, according , which, according to the assessee, fell clearly beyond the statutory limit, rendering to the assessee, fell clearly beyond the statutory limit, rendering to the assessee, fell clearly beyond the statutory limit, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding void the entire reassessment proceeding void ab initio and without jurisdiction.

3.3 Per contra, the he Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the factual matrix required verification from the contended that the factual matrix required verification from the contended that the factual matrix required verification from the assessment records. It was urged that the computation of assessment records. It was urged that the computation of assessment records. It was urged that the computation of limitation depended upon the date of the limitation depended upon the date of the last response last response submitted by the assessee, since the tw by the assessee, since the two-week survival period was to be week survival period was to be reckoned from that date and not from the first or any reckoned from that date and not from the first or any reckoned from that date and not from the first or any intermediate response. The intermediate response. The Ld. DR thus submitted that, in the thus submitted that, in the absence of clarity as to whether the response dated 26.05.2022 absence of clarity as to whether the response dated 26.05.2022 absence of clarity as to whether the response dated 26.05.2022 was indeed the final reply under Section 148 was indeed the final reply under Section 148A(b), the matter A(b), the matter warranted verification from the record of the Assessing Officer. warranted verification from the record of the Assessing Officer. warranted verification from the record of the Assessing Officer.

4.1 The ratio emerging from The ratio emerging from Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the (supra) is that the notices notices notices issued issued issued during during during the the the interregnum interregnum interregnum period period period between between between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 30.06.2021 under the erstwhile regime shall be under the erstwhile regime shall be treated as notices under Section 148A(b), and the Revenue would treated as notices under Section 148A(b), and the Revenue would treated as notices under Section 148A(b), and the Revenue would be entitled to issue fresh notices under the amended provision be entitled to issue fresh notices under the amended provision be entitled to issue fresh notices under the amended provision within a period of two weeks from the date of response submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of response submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of response submitted by the assessee. The subseq by the assessee. The subsequent decision in Rajeev Bansal Rajeev Bansal (supra) (supra) (supra) clarified clarified clarified and and and reaffirmed reaffirmed reaffirmed the the the limitation limitation limitation contours, contours, contours, emphasizing that such extended survival of time was to be emphasizing that such extended survival of time was to be emphasizing that such extended survival of time was to be construed strictly and could not be enlarged or extended by construed strictly and could not be enlarged or extended by construed strictly and could not be enlarged or extended by administrative interpretation. administrative interpretation.

4.2 In the present case, the assessee has contended that his case, the assessee has contended that his last response was filed on 26.05.2022 and that, accordingly, the last response was filed on 26.05.2022 and that, accordingly, the last response was filed on 26.05.2022 and that, accordingly, the extended limitation expired on 12.06.2022, while the Department extended limitation expired on 12.06.2022, while the Department extended limitation expired on 12.06.2022, while the Department asserts that further responses may have been filed thereafter. asserts that further responses may have been filed thereafter. asserts that further responses may have been filed thereafter. The record before us, The record before us, however, does not conclusively establish however, does not conclusively establish this factual aspect. Since the entire edifice of limitation hinges on this factual aspect. Since the entire edifice of limitation hinges on this factual aspect. Since the entire edifice of limitation hinges on the ascertainment of the last date of the assessee’s response, it is the ascertainment of the last date of the assessee’s response, it is the ascertainment of the last date of the assessee’s response, it is imperative that this fact be duly verified from the assessment file. imperative that this fact be duly verified from the assessment file. imperative that this fact be duly verified from the assessment file.

4.3 In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the binding view of the foregoing, and having regard to the binding view of the foregoing, and having regard to the binding dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal Rajeev Bansal (supra) and Ashish Agarwal (supra), we consider it just and proper to remit (supra), we consider it just and proper to remit (supra), we consider it just and proper to remit this additional ground to the file of the this additional ground to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) Ld. CIT(A) for limited verification. The Ld. CIT(A) Ld. CIT(A) shall ascertain from the assessment shall ascertain from the assessment records the precise date of the assessee’s last response under records the precise date of the assessee’s last response under records the precise date of the assessee’s last response under Section 148A(b) and thereafter adjudicate the question of Section 148A(b) and thereafter adjudicate the question of Section 148A(b) and thereafter adjudicate the question of limitation in accordance with law. limitation in accordance with law.

4.4 It is made clear that the It is made clear that the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford due shall afford due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order upon such verification. order upon such verification.

4.5 In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we refrain from adjudicating upon the other grounds , we refrain from adjudicating upon the other grounds , we refrain from adjudicating upon the other grounds raised on the merits of the addition, which shall remain open. e merits of the addition, which shall remain open. e merits of the addition, which shall remain open.