ACIT, NEW DELHI V. M/S SBK TRADE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 2173/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had allowed the assessee's objections regarding the validity of a reassessment notice. The primary legal issue was whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, was validly approved. The assessee contended that the notice was improperly approved by the JCIT, Range 22, instead of the Pr. CIT as required for cases reopened after four years. The tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, agreed with the assessee and quashed the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784587 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal, Tata Communications Transformation Services vs. ACIT, JM Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Sidhmicro Equities Private Ltd. vs. DCIT, Soumya Girdhari Agrawal vs. ITO, Voltas Limited vs. ACIT, IBIBO Group Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle 10 (1) & Anr., Make My Trip India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 (Assessment Years : 2015-16) ACIT, CC – 04, vs. M/s. SBK Trade and Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AARCS9589C) CO No.110 /Del/2025 (in ITA No.2173/DEL/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s. SBK Trade and Infrastructure Private Ltd., vs. ACIT, CC – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AARCS9589C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Mukesh Jain, CA Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The Revenue has filed appeal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 CO No.110/Del/2025 07.01.2025 for AY 2015-16. The assessee has also filed cross objections in the aforesaid assessment year. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals and cross objections are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First we proceed to hear the cross objections raised by the assessee. CO No.120/Del/2025 (AY 2015-16) 4. The assessee has taken the following ground of appeal in the cross objections :- “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed as the approval as mentioned in notice u/s 148 has been taken from Range 22, Delhi instead of correct authority under the applicable provisions of sec. 151(1) which is Pr. CIT, Delhi as the case has been reopened after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year.” 5. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the aforesaid ground was taken before the ld. CIT (A) as ground no.2 wherein assessee has made detailed submissions and relied on various judgments. However, the ld. CIT (A) without appreciating the facts in right context deleted the said ground. 6. In this regard, ld. AR for the assessee submitted brought to our notice the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 31.03.2021 by taking the approval of JCIT, Range 22, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 CO No.110/Del/2025 New Delhi for escapement of income of Rs.4,00,00,000/-. He brought to our notice that the provisions of section 151 of the Act in which it is specifically mentioned that if the four years have been lapsed from the assessment year, then approval for the issuance of notice u/s 148 has to be taken from Pr.CIT. He submitted that in this case, assessment was completed on 30.03.2022. Therefore, he submitted that in the instant case, issuance of notice has to be granted by the Pr.CIT but the Assessing Officer has taken approval from JCIT under the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act by taking the cognizance of TOLA 2020. Further, he brought to our notice provisions of section 151 as applicable on the date of issuance of notice. He further submitted that the time limit to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 expires on 31.03.2022 i.e., six years from the end of assessment year (section 149(1)(b)). He further submitted that the provisions of the Act were envisaged under the section 3 of TOLA, which was only a relaxation provision dealing with the time limits of the various Acts which were getting time barred between 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021. In the present case, he submitted that time limit to issue notice was getting barred on 31.03.2022, thus TOLA will not be applicable. Hence, he submitted that the approval granted by JCIT, Range - 22, New Delhi is not in consonance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the notice issued Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 CO No.110/Del/2025 by the AO u/ s 148 is liable to be quashed. 7. Further, ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT (A), vide Para No. 15 while passing the order 07.01.2025has taken the wrong cognizance of the decision in case of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), while passing the order. Accordingly, to sustain the claim of the assessee, he placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) UOI & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal - Civil Appeal No. 8629/2023 dated 03.10.2024 which is squarely covered with the case of the Appellant wherein the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India has himself admitted that for all the proceedings pertaining to AY 2015-16, all the 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 TOLA. (ii) Tata Communications Transformation Services Rajebahadur Madhusudan Trimbak & Ors. vs. ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 49 (Bom.); (iii) JM Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2023) 451 ITR 205 (Bom.); (iv) Sidhmicro Equities Private Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 453 ITR 33 (Bom); (v) Soumya Girdhari Agrawal vs. ITO – (2023) 457 ITR 636 (Bom.); (vi) Voltas Limited vs. ACIT – 2022 (4) TMI 594 – Bombay High Court. In view of his submissions, ld. AR pleaded that the initiation of reassessment is barred by limitation and thus, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 CO No.110/Del/2025 8. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities on this issue. 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that before Hon’ble Supreme Court, Revenue had conceded that for AY 2015-16, all the appeals have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA, 2020. Based on the findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) SSC Online SC 2693, we are inclined to agree with the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, we are reproducing the relevant part of the aforesaid judgment :- “(e) The Finance Act, 2021 ((2021) 432 ITR (Stat) 52) substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 3 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 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 Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, then all the notices issued between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) (3) Within Six Years (4) Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA 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 Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 CO No.110/Del/2025 2015-16 31.03.2019 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-17 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-18 30.06.2021 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 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.” 10. We further observe that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of IBIBO Group Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle 10 (1) & Anr., W.P.(C) 17639/2022 and Make My Trip India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr., wherein Hon’ble High Court had quashed the re-assessment proceedings on the basis of the concession of the Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). In this regard, we reproduce the relevant findings in the case of Make My Trip India Private Limited vs. DCIT as under :- “11. In the present case, the impugned notice was issued on 27.07.2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. And, TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 11. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the cross objections for AY 2015-16 filed by the assessee is allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.2173/DEL/2025 CO No.110/Del/2025 12. Since the cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed, the Department’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is also dismissed as infructuous. 13. To sum up : the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day 14TH of November, 2025. SD/- SD/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14.11.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "