DAMANJEET SINGH OBEROI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 317/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Damanjeet Singh Oberoi, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which upheld the re-assessment proceedings and the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The re-assessment was based on a survey conducted on the Babylon Group, where it was found that Oberoi received a substantial cash payment for the sale of immovable property, which was not reflected in his books. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents from the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, which held that notices issued under the old regime after 1st April 2021 for the assessment year 2015-16 were invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825215 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, Veena Jain vs. ITO, Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. ITO, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Deepak Steel and Power Limited V/S Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax V/S Nehal Ashit Shah, Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt Ltd V/S Income-tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.317/RPR/2025 Assessment year : 2015-16 Damanjeet Singh Oberoi C/o Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Building, KK Road, Moudhapara, Raipur – 492001 Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Raipur PAN: AAEPO3096L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 14-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upholding the re-assessment proceedings and sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30.06.2016 declaring total income of Rs.7,01,410/-. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 30.05.2017 in the case of Babylon Group who are engaged in hotel sector. During the survey proceedings a hard disk was impounded from the premises of hotel Babylon Continental, Raipur according to which they have received and made huge cash payments in connection with its investment in Babylon Continental and sale of immovable properties during the financial years 2013-14 to 2016-17. On further examination of the data extracted from the hard disk it was found that hotel Babylon Continental has made huge cash payments during the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16 against the immovable properties purchased from various persons. The assessee Damanjeet Singh Oberoi, one of the seller of the immovable property had received huge cash payment amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer thereafter verified the return of income filed by the assessee and noted that the assessee has sold certain land for which he has received certain amount through banking channel which are reflected in the bank statement, however, the cash received as per the ledger was not reflected in his books of account. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. 4. Subsequently on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC) the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 Officer issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 21.05.2022. After considering the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2023 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.07.2023 under the new regime. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein he made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee challenged the validity of re- assessment proceedings and the addition on merit. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Gr.No.1 \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s148 dt.30- 6-21 (under old regime) for AY 15-16 is invalid, it is barred by limitation as uploaded on 2-7-21 by intimation letter mentioning DIN; further proceedings i.e. notice u/s148A(b) dt.21-5-22 order u/s148A(d) dt.25-7-22; notice u/s 148 dt.26-7-22 (under new regime) would also be invalid & therefore, assessment made u/s147 dt. 26-5-23 based on such invalid notice u/s148 dt. 26-7-22 (under new regime), would be invalid and is liable to be quashed.\" Gr.No.2 \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s148A(d) dt.25-7-22 & reopening notice u/s148 dt.26-7-22 (under new regime) for AY 15-16 are invalid; it is barred by limitation i.e. beyond the period of 6 years as per first proviso of sec 149(1)(b) of new regime, order u/s 148A(d) dt.25-7-22 & notice u/s148 dt. 26-7-22 (under new regime) are invalid and therefore, assessment made u/s147 dt.26-5-23 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.\" Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 Gr.No.3 \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A on account of cash receipt from Babylon Group, addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 is merely based on third party material / statement of Mr. Atul Shivastav; AO has not brought any material evidence on record for the alleged cash receipt of Rs.1,00,00,000 from Babylon Gr.; without giving opportunity to cross examine the third party (Mr.Atul); in absence of this, addition made u/s 69A as unexplained money is merely on presumption & surmises is invalid & unjustified and is liable to be deleted\" Gr.No.4 \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, AO has erred in applying higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE on the alleged unexplained money u/s 69A on the basis of ledger account found at third party premises (Babylon Gr.); AO has not brought any material evidence on record for the alleged cash receipts, and therefore, application of sec 115BBE is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be deleted.\" Gr.No.5 \"The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.\" 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Jain vs. ITO reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 101 (Del) submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that for assessment year 2015-16, notices issued under section 148 on or after 1-4-2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. 8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. ITO reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 decision has held that where the Assessing Officer issued reopening notice to assessee for assessment year 2015-16 on 5-4-2022, since revenue had categorically made a concession before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/ 301 Taxman 238/ 469 ITR 46 (SC) that for assessment year 2015-16 it would drop all notices issued under section 148 after 1-4-2021, impugned notice dated 5-4-2022 and all consequential orders/notices would not survive. He submitted that since admittedly the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued under the old regime on 30.06.2021 and thereafter under the new regime notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 23.07.2022, therefore, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited (supra), such notices issued for reopening of the assessment are to be dropped and accordingly the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.06.2016. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 30.05.2017 in the case of Babylon Group who are engaged in hotel sector. The Assessing Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. Subsequently on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 21.05.2022. After considering the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2023 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.07.2023 under the new regime. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein he made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the re-assessment proceedings as well addition on merit. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 on 26.07.2023 is a valid notice or not. 11. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Jain vs. ITO (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that for assessment year 2015-16, notices issued under section 148 on or after 1-4- 2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 12. Similarly, we find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. ITO (supra) has held that where the Assessing Officer issued reopening notice to assessee for assessment year 2015-16 on 5-4- 2022, since revenue had categorically made a concession before Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/ 301 Taxman 238/ 469 ITR 46 (SC) that for assessment year 2015-16 it would drop all notices issued under section 148 after 1-4-2021, impugned notice dated 5-4-2022 and all consequential orders/notices would not survive. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “2. The present Petition has been filed primarily, with a prayer to quash and set aside (i) the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the Notice issued under Section 148, both dated 5th April 2022 (Exhibit B and C); (ii) the reassessment order dated 27th May 2024 passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act; (iii) notice of demand of even date raised for an amount of Rs.4,43,17,910/- for the Assessment Year ('A.Y.') 2015-16 (Exhibit E1 and E2); as well as (iv) the recovery notices issued for recovery of demand dated 2nd July 2025 and 9th September 2025 (Exhibit G and I) and the consequential penalty notices and orders. 3. At the outset, it has been fairly stated by Mr.Gandhi, that the Petitioner herein has filed an Appeal against the reassessment order passed. However, he submitted that no hearing has taken place despite the Appeal being filed more than one year back. Further, he stated that notices for recovery of demand have been issued on two occasions and the Petitioner has been threatened with coercive steps. He submitted that if the present Writ Petition is allowed then, he shall withdraw the Appeal. 4. It is contended by the Petitioner that the Notice issued under Section 148 for A.Y.2015-16 is dated 5th April 2022. Since it is issued after 1st April 2021, it is without jurisdiction and has to be withdrawn in light of the concession made by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India V/S Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further, reliance is placed on the order dated 2nd April 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited V/S Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors in SLP (C) No.5632/2023 and an order dated 4th April 2025 passed in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax V/S Nehal Ashit Shah in SLP (C) Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 No.57209/2023. Further, our attention is also drawn to the decision of this Court in Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt Ltd V/S Income-tax Officer [W.P.1325 of 2023 decided on 6th October 2025]. Once the Notice under Section 148 is bad in law, all the consequential orders/notices would also not survive, is the submission. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the above position. However, he contends that an Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner and that this Petition need not be entertained. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022 which is at page 52 of the paper book. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:- 19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- a…. e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for reassessment 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: 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;\" (emphasis supplied) 7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5 th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 8. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- \"19. (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.\" 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- \"5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned.\" 10. Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 12. In light of this order, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the Appeal filed by him before the CIT (Appeals) within a period of 2 weeks from today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason, the present order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside, then the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) will automatically stand revived and the same shall be prosecuted on its own merits and in accordance with law. 13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. No orders as to cost. 14. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.” 13. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as per the case law compilation also support his case to the above proposition. Since the facts of the in the instant case are identical to the facts of the cases decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited (supra), therefore, in absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by the Ld. DR, we respectfully following the decisions cited (supra) quash the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2023. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 1st January, 2026 GCVSR Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.317/RPR/2025 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Raipur DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 02.12.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 02.12.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "