AGARWAL ALLOY STEELS PVT LTD,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C R BUILDING

CO 3/DEL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and a cross objection by Aggarwal Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd, both arising from an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The primary legal issue was the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee contended was barred by limitation. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events and relevant legal provisions, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, which influenced the interpretation of the limitation period for issuing such notices. The Tribunal found that the notice was indeed issued beyond the permissible time frame, leading to the quashing of the notice and the subsequent assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835893 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5074/DEL/2025 (AYR 2013-14) ITO, VS. AGGARWAL ALLOY STEELS ROOM NO. 199F, PVT LTD., 1ST FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, 204, 2ND FLOOR, ABHINASH I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 MANSIO, MAIN JOSHI ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-5 (PAN: AADCA6884C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And CROSS OBJECTION No. 3/DEL/2026 (AYR 2013-14) (IN ITA NO. 5074/DEL/2025) AGGARWAL ALLOY STEELS VS. ITO, PVT LTD., ROOM NO. 199F, 204, 2ND FLOOR, ABHINASH 1ST FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, MANSIO, MAIN JOSHI ROAD, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-5 (PAN: AADCA6884C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Piyush Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.2.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.2.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee, both are arising out of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10280584 dated 7.04.2025. Since the appeal and Cross Objections both are inter-connected, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. First we deal with Assessee’s Cross Objection No. 219/Del/2025 (AY 2015-16). 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has raised jurisdictional issue in the cross objection that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. For this, assessee has only raised and argued the following Ground No. 4 : “That the order passed u/s. 148A(d) and notice issued u/s. 148, issued after the surviving period hence barred by limitation, in the light of the judgement of Higher Courts. So, the reopening and assessment order passed by the AO is void ab initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment order is barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessment has been framed on the basis of second notice dated 29.7.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act. He explained the chronological list of relevant events, which reads as under:- Date Event 1st notice u/s. 148 issued 26.6.2021 Extended limitation as per the TOLA 30.6.2021 No. of days b/w First Notice u/s. 148 and 30.6.2021 (surviving period) 5 days (26.6.2021 to 30.6.2021) Minimum period available with AO to issue order u/s. 148A(d) as per fourth proviso of section 149 7 days Surviving time (extended to 7 days) 7 days Date of decision of Ashish Agarwal 4.5.2022 Notice u/s. 148A(b) issued on 27.5.2022 Time given 2 weeks (i.e. by 10.6.2022) Assessee’s reply 10.6.2022 Order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 had to be passed till 17.6.2022 (i.e. 7 days after assessee’s reply dated 10.6.2022) Order u/s. 148A(d) & Second Notice u/s. 148 issued on 29.7.2022 (i.e. 42 days after the surviving / balance time period) Printed from counselvise.com 3 4.1 In view of aforesaid chronological list of relevant events, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Revenue had only 7 days to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act of the new regime, i.e. till 17.6.2022, after receipt of the response from the assessee on 10.6.2022 to the show cause notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act. However, undisputedly, in the present case, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29.7.2022, i.e., 42 days after the surviving/ balance time. So, notice u/s. 148 issued on 29.7.2022 is barred by limitation and hence bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ld. DR could not contorovert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR for the assessee. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and gone through the above noted facts and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and the same is therefore, set aside, as a result thereof, the assessment order is hereby quashed and accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner. 6. As regards Revenue’s appeal No. 5074/Del/2025 (AY 2013-14) is concerned, since we have already decided the Assessee’s cross objection on the jurisdictional issue in favour of the Assessee by setting aside the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and subsequently, quashing the assessment order, thus, the issues raised in the Revenue’s appeal have become infructuous and dismissed the same accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com 4 7. In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnaggar Date: 13-02-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches Printed from counselvise.com "