ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI V. GOURAV BATRA, DELHI

ITITA 7/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had quashed a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was initially issued for reassessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The core issue was the computation of the limitation period for issuing the notice under the new regime post the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Aggarwal. The Revenue contended that the notice was valid, while the assessee argued it was barred by limitation. The tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, found that the notice was indeed issued beyond the permissible time frame, leading to its quashing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836578 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aggarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2002, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC Online SC 2693
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMOD KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVAM GARG
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.07/Del/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ACIT, Delhi Vs. Gourav Batra, Flat No.1, Plot No.7&8, Community Centre, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, Delhi – 110 028. PAN: AFDPB3828H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY: The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the DCIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14. Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.7/Del/2025 2 2. The facts leading to the case is that the first notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.06.2021 and as per TOLA the extended limitation period was dated 30.06.2021. Therefore, the surviving period was three days from 28.06.2021 to 30.06.2021 and the minimum period available for the AO to issue order u/s 148A(d) was seven days. 3. After the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Aggarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2002 the said notice was treated as notice u/s 148A under the new regime. The notice u/s 148A(b) thereafter was issued on 31.05.2022 giving two weeks’ time to file the reply by the assessee, i.e., by 14.06.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC Online SC 2693 has thereafter conclusively settled the manner of computation of limitation in such cases. It has been held that the validity of reassessment proceedings has to be tested by computing the “surviving period” available to the Assessing Officer on a case-to-case basis after accounting for all the exclusions. In the present case, as on 28.06.2021, only two days of limitation remained available, i.e. from 28.06.2021 to 30.06.2021. In terms of the third proviso to section 149(1), the period commencing from the date of issuance of the original notice (which stood deemed as notice under section 148A(b) till the date of supply of material and the time allowed to file reply is required to be excluded. Accordingly, the period from 28.06.2021 to 31.05.2022 stands excluded. Further, the limitation recommenced only after the assessee filed its Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.7/Del/2025 3 reply on 17.06.2022. By applying the fourth proviso to section 149(1), the Assessing Officer could at best be granted a maximum of seven days to issue a notice under section 148. On a combined reading of the above provisions and the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, the outer limit for issuance of notice under section 148 in the present case expired on 24.06.2022. However, the impugned notice under section 148 has been issued on 27.07.2022, i.e. after the expiry of the statutory limitation period. In view of the matter, the assessee has challenged the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 27.07.2022 as barred by limitation and, thus, liable to be quashed. Very many judgements were relied upon by the assessee in this regard. 4. The Ld. DR has not been able to controvert such factual aspect. Thus, having regard to the facts involved in the matter and the judgements passed by different forums as relied by the assessee, the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 is found to be barred by limitation and the same is, thus, liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13th February, 2026. Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.7/Del/2025 4 dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "