ASTHA INFRAPROJECT PVT LTD,NOIDA V. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NOIDA

ITA 6441/DEL/2025

AI Insights

Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment order. The reassessment was initiated based on information from a search operation related to the Samtel Group, indicating that the assessee had taken accommodation entries of unsecured loans. The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal, challenging the validity of the notice under section 148, which was issued and served after the amendment to the law that required a different procedure for reassessment notices. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which clarified the procedure for issuing reassessment notices under the amended law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 843060 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal, Suman Jeet Agarwal and Ors. vs. ITO & Ors., Makemytrip India Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMBIR SINGH
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6441/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd., D-9, Sector-55, Uttar Pradesh-201301. PAN-AALCA5386M Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sombir Singh, CA Department by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 03/03/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.08.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.sections144/144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 2. The assessee company filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 28,66,609/- and the assessment stood completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.72,91,505/- by making addition of Rs. 1,01,58,114/-. Based on the information received through data flagged by the Directorate of Systems, that a Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC Search and Seizure operation in the case of Samtel Group of Companies was conducted on 18.01.2018 and during the search proceedings, it was found that 04 Non-Banking Finance Companies (“NBFCs”) viz. M/s SW Consultants Pvt. Ltd., M/s CEA Consultants Pvt. Limited, Tish Consultants P Ltd and M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd were involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans. The name of the assessee was appearing in the list of beneficiaries who have taken accommodation entries of unsecured loans. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act was passed dated 30.03.2022 at a total income at Rs. 1,58,02,700/- by making addition of Rs. 83,44,313/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE and further, addition of Rs 1,66,886/- as commission paid @ 2% u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act was made. 3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition/disallowance made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal and has raised following Grounds of appeal:- 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer while making addition of Rs 85,11,199/- acted against the principle of natural justice despite of the fact that the same is made based on material collected at the back of the assessee without supplying the background material and giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the third party or information even though assessee has specifically asked for the same. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred, both on facts and in law, in making the addition arbitrarily by ignoring the explanation and evidences fled by the assessee and despite of submitting all the requisite details in respect of loan taken and those have been duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred, both on facts and in law despite the fact that the assessee had submitted full details regarding the earning profile of the entity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified. 5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Ld AO erred in passing impugned assessment order by making subject addition u/s 68 and 69A of Rs. 85,11,199/- on disclosed and recorded transaction without objectively considering reply of assessee fled in response to show cause notice and exactly passing the same assessment order as proposed in show cause which vindicates arbitrariness and biasedness in entire proceedings and thus it should be held invalid. Brazen violation of principles of Audi Altrem Partem. 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld AO erred in making impugned additions without appreciating that mandatory CBDT guidelines no. 20/2015 on issuing show cause notice has been fragrantly violated and incomplete show cause notice with no material having nexus with assessee is supplied as repeatedly requested and last time on 25-03-2022, thus resulting in invalidating the entire proceedings. 5.2 That Ld AO erred in not providing cross examination of key person with assessee as requested as per principles of natural justice and thus flouting dictum of apex court in Andaman Timber Industries. 5.3 That Ld AO erred in passing assessment order u/s 147/144B without affording proper opportunity to assessee as under:- (i) Mere 1 day opportunity is given in show cause notice to reply which is against settled principles of fair opportunity. (ii) Not considering the reply fled in response to the show case notice dated 24.03.2022 even before the day and time fixed for the same. (iii) Specific request for personal hearing was fled with each submission fled by the assessee and the assessment order has been passed without giving the same and there was no specific option available for seeking video conferencing at the portal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 6. That appellant craves to leave, alter, amend or modify the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. 7. That each ground is independent and without prejudice to each other.” 5. During the course of hearing, vide letter dt. 09.02.2026, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The additional ground of appeal taken read as under: “ The notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 is invalid and bad in law, as it has been issued under the provisions of law as they existed up to 31.03.2021, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the substituted provisions effective from 01.04.2021. The said notice was actually dispatched through email on 01.04.2021 and served upon the assessee on 01.04 .2021, and therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.” 6. Ld. AR submits that additional ground of appeal now taken is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter and requires no investigation or verification thus, the same be admitted for adjudication. He placed reliance on the judgement of the hon’ble supreme court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC). 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 8. On the request of ld. SR DR, a report from the AO is obtained which is submitted vide letter dt. 10.02.2026 and is placed on record. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 9. After considering the submission of the assessee, report of the AO and on perusal of the additional ground of appeal taken, it is observed that assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment order as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 and thus amended provisions w.e.f. 01.04.2021 as provided in section 148A of the Act are applicable, which were not followed and therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings based on such belated notice, is invalid. Since it is purely a legal issue and AO has also filed the report stating the true facts related to this additional ground of appeal, therefore, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the assessee, additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 10. First we take the additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee wherein assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment order based on the notice issued u/s 148 on 01.04.2021 without following the amended provisions of section 148A of the Act. 11. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 and digitally signed on the same date however, this notice was served upon the assessee through mail on 1st April, 2021. In this regard, our attention is invited to the paper book page 32 which is the screen shot of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as supplied by the AO alongwith the show cause notice dt. 24.03.2022. As per the screen shot, it is observed that mail containing notice u/s 148 was sent on 1st April, 2021 at 7.19.56 A.M. and served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 at 07.20.02 AM. Thus, it is clear that the notice u/s 148 dt. 31.03.2021 Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC was actually issued and served upon the assessee on 1st April, 2021. With effect from 01.04.2021, amended provisions of section 148A and 148 were inserted vide Finance Act, 2021 according to which first notice is to be given u/s 148A(a) and after providing the information u/s 148A(b), assessee could file objections u/s 148A(c) and thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) has to be passed disposing the objections raised by the assessee and notice u/s 148 could be issued. 12. The Ld. AR further submits that in terms of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all the notices issued u/s 148 during the period from 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 be treated as notices issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and, thereafter, the AO has to complete the proceedings u/s 148A by passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and, thereafter, the notice u/s 148 could be issued. As per ld. AR since in the instant case, notice u/s 148 was issued / served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 therefore, the procedure as provided u/s 148A of the Act should be followed before the issue of notice u/s 148 which has not been done. Therefore, according to ld. AR, consequent reassessment proceedings based on such invalid notice deserves to be held as bad in law and liable to be quashed. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal and Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del.) and in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anors. reported in [2025] 4 TMI 46 (Delhi). Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 13. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR submits that as per the report of the AO, the notice u/s 148 was generated and digitally signed through ITBA Portal and issued on 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM. However, it was delivered on 01.04.2021 at 07.20.02 AM. Ld. Sr .DR further submits that as per section 148 of the act and further the limitation prescribed u/s 149 of the Act specifically refers to the \"issuance\" of notice and not to its \"service\". Ld. Sr. DR thus submits that what is material for unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside the control of the originator i.e. the assessing authority that shall the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 149 of the Act, 1961. Ld. Sr. DR thus submitted that since the notice u/s 148 was digitally sent outside the control of the AO on 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM therefore, it should be taken as the date of issuance of notice and requested that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is valid notice. He prayed accordingly. 14. Heard the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Section 148 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions of section 148 of the Act applicable till 31.03.2021 could be issued only upto 31.03.2021. This issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC). In the instant case the notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 which fact is admitted by the AO in the report submitted by ld. Sr. DR before us which reads as under : Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC Dated. 10.02.2026 To The Senior Departmental Representative O/o Commissioner of Income Tax (DR) A-Bench, ITAT, Khan Market, Delhi Sir/Madam, Sub: Assessee's appeal in the case of Astha Infraproject Pvt Ltd (PAN: AALCA5386M) in ITA No. 6441/Del/2025 of A.Y. 2017-18-Reg. Kindly refer to your good office mail dated 09.02.2026 on the above mentioned subject. 2. In connection with the information sought by your good office regarding the claim made by the Authorised Representative that \"the notice issued u/s 148 is time-barred as the notice was sent & delivered to the assessee on 01.04.2021 instead of on or before 31.03.2021\". In this regard, it is submitted that, based on the records available with this office, the following facts pertaining to the timeline in the above matter are as under: Notice u/s 148 was generated through ITBA Portal/issued 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM on Notice u/s 148 was signed through ITBA Portal/issued on 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM Notice u/s 148 was delivered on 01.04.2021 at 07.20.02. AM The delivery report, notice u/s 148 issued on 31.03.2021 and order sheet of the ITBA Portal in the instant case is attached herewith for ready reference. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, on 31.03.2021 by the Assessing Officer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The limitation prescribed under section 149 of the Income-tax Act specifically refers to the \"issuance\" of notice and not to its \"service\". Therefore, what is material for unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside the control of the originator i.e. the assessing authority that shall the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 149 of the Act, 1961.\" 6. Keeping in view of the above, it is submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 on 31.03.2021 is valid.” Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 15. The copy of the screen shot as supplied by the AO along with the show cause notice dt. 24.03.2022 and available at page 32 of the paper book, is reproduced as under: Sent Time Stamp-01.04.2021 at 07.19.56 AM Delivered Time Stamp-01.04.2021 at 07.20.02 AM Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 16. From the perusal of the above, it is clear that in the instant case, the notice u/s 148 was issued through email on 01.04.2021 at 07.19.56 AM and delivered at 7.20.02 AM. Thus it cannot be said that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM which infact is the date and time when the notice u/s 148 was generated and digitally signed by the AO however, since it was sent through email therefore, the date and time when the email was issued to the assessee needs to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitations which in the instant case was of 01.04.2021 at 07.19.56 AM. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), held that the notice issued u/s 148 on or after 01.04.2021 should be treated as the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and, thereafter, the information available with the AO should be supplied to the assessee and after receiving the reply fromt eh assessee, the order u/s 148A(d) should be passed and then notice u/s 148 could be issued to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal vs. Union of India reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) has held as under: “19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial be nefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re- assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re-assessment for previous assessment years; Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply \"notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.\" Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime; e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA 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 TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to 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 (1) Within 3 Years (2) Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) (3) Within six Years (4) Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (5) 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 2015-2016 31.03.2019 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; g. Section 2 of TOLA defines \"specified Act\" to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show- cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra). 18. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal and Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. (supra) under identical circumstances has held that where notice u/s 148 was issued prior to amendment and was served upon the assessee after the amendment, the same should be treated as notice u/s 148A(b) and if the said procedure is not followed, the same is liable to be quashed. The relevant extract of the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as contained in para 31 is reproduced as under: “31. For the reason and principles that we have laid down, we dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following directions. 31.1 Category ‘A’,: The Notices falling under category 'A', which were digitally signed on or after 14 of Apr, 2021 are held is bear the date on which Notices were digitally signed and not 31st March 2021. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction that the said Notices are to be considered as show cause- notices under Section 148A (h) of the Act as per the directions of the apes Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.2 Category ‘B’,: The Notices falling under category ‘B' which were sent through the registered e-mail ID of the respective JAOs. Though not digitally singed are held to be valid. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine the date and time of is dispatch as recorded in the ITBA portal in acceptance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of issuance. If the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or after of 2021 the Notices are to be considered as show-cause-notices under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.3. Category ‘C’: The petitions challenging Notices falling under category. C' which were digitally signed on 31st of March 2021 to the JAOs to verify and determine the date and time of dispatch as recorded in the ITIBA portal in accordance with Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC the law laid down in the of issuance. If the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or before 1st of April, 2021, the Notices are in be considered as show cause notes under Section 1464 (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.4. Category ‘D’: The petitions challenging Notices falling under category D' which were only uploaded in the E-filing portal of the assesses without any re alert, are disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to determine the date and time when the assessees viewed the Notices in the E-f-ling portal, as recorded in the ITBA portal and conclude such date as the date of issuance in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment. If such date of issuance is determined to be on or after 1st of April 2021, the Notices will be construed as issued under Section 1484 (b) of the Act of 1961 as per the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.5 Category ’E’: The petitions challenging Notices falling under category which manually dispatched. disposed of with the direction to the JAD determine in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment, the date and time when the Notices were delivered to the post office for dispatch and consider the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or after. 1st of April, 2021, the Notices are to be construed as show-cause-notices under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.6. Notices sent to unrelated e-mail addresses. The petitions challenging Notices which were sent to unrelated e-mail addresses are disposed of with the direction the JAOs to verify the date on which the Notice was first viewed by the assessee on the E-filing portal and consider the same as the date of issuance. If such date of Issuance is determined to be on or after 01st April, 2021, the Notices will be construed issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1981 as per judgment in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) 31.7. We may note that in the writ petitions, the petitioners have raised additional defenses to challenge the impugned Notices. Such additional defenses have not been considered by this Court and the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such additional defenses as available in law 31.8. We are conscious that the time granted by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal to the Department has since expired on 3rd June, 2022 however, the proceedings in the present writ petitions were stayed on 24th March, 2022 until the pronouncement of this judgment. Therefore, we grant the JACs in the instance eight (8) weeks time from today to determine the date of issuance of the Notices as per the law laid down in this judgment. 31.9. The Notices which in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment has been verified by the JAOs to have been issued on or after 01st April 2021 and until 30th June, 2021 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 as substituted by the Finance Art, 2021 and construed to be Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) as per the judgment of the apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) and the JAOs shall thereafter follow the procedure set down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment which reads as follows: “26 view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WT. No. 624/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:- (1) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which the subject matter of wit petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b) The assessing officer that within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed wit as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officer to hold any enquiry, if required. (iii) The assessing officer shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assesseess; Thereafter, after following the procedure required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assesses including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all nights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.” 19. Similar view is expressed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Make My Trip India Private Limited (supra). Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.6441/Del/2025 Astha Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC 20. In the light of above facts, in our considered opinion, in the instant case, the order passed u/s 147 of the Act based on the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 which was issued and served upon the assessee on 1st April, 2021 is bad in law as the same was issued without following the due procedure as provided under the amendment section 148 and 148A of the Act and the consequent reassessment order passed is hereby quashed. The additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is thus allowed. 21. Since, we have allowed the assessee’s additional ground of appeal, therefore, other grounds of appeal taken by the assessee, become academic and not adjudicated. 22. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.03.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "