The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued between July and September 2022, in pursuance of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, are to be considered as a substitution of notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021. Therefore, the sanctioning authority for these notices, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 151(i) of the Act, as the relevant time limits were extended by TOLA.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 issued for AY 2015-16 was time-barred. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. and other High Courts and ITAT benches, which held that for AY 2015-16, notices issued after April 1, 2021, are liable to be dropped.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in NTPC vs CIT. It held that the notices under Section 148 and the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) were issued beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court which quashed similar notices as time-barred.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in NTPC vs CIT. It was held that the notices under section 148 were issued beyond the 'surviving period' as per various High Court decisions, making them time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue concerning the same assessee for a different assessment year was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with similar directions.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the current appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with similar directions.

The Tribunal held that deemed rental income on unsold inventory flats, which are stock-in-trade, cannot be added as income from house property, following various High Court and Tribunal precedents. Regarding the interest on fixed deposits, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay. The merits of the case were not considered by the lower appellate authority.

SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to condone the delay and decide the cases on merit. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty pertaining to the amount that was ultimately allowed as deduction.

SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit, considering the principles of substantial justice. Subsequently, based on prior ITAT rulings, the Tribunal deleted the penalty attributable to the allowed deduction under section 80P for interest earned from cooperative banks and also directed cancellation of penalty on the disallowed interest on MSEDCL deposit, deeming it a debatable issue.

SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal observed that penalty under section 270A cannot be levied on amounts subsequently allowed as deduction by the Tribunal, and set aside the penalty on the allowed deduction amounts, also directing cancellation of penalty on a debatable issue.

SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.

SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, especially when the assessee's challenge was based on a lack of jurisdiction to levy the late fee for the period prior to June 1, 2015. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the tribunal found that delay should have been condoned.

SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, especially when the jurisdiction to levy late fees itself was under challenge. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeals afresh on merits.

SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the jurisdiction to levy the late fee itself was under challenge. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal directed that the delay ought to have been condoned.

SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay.

SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A)/NFAC solely on the grounds of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese v. ITO, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeals afresh on merits.