DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI V. RCC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 4695/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted an addition regarding alleged bogus sales amounting to Rs.4,80,25,220 to Rishab Trading Company. The assessee, RCC Developers (P) Ltd., filed a cross objection challenging the validity of the notices issued under section 148 for reassessment, claiming they were time-barred. The tribunal examined the notices issued under both the old and new regimes following the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal, and found both to be issued beyond the permissible time limits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790117 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Rajiv Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV SAPRA
• Keywords: Bogus
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALANGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4695/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] DCIT Circle – 19(1) Delhi Vs. RCC Developers (P) Ltd. C-29/Y-1, C-Block, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095 PAN No.AACCR3682E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.84/Del/2025 (In ITA No.4695/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] RCC Developers (P) Ltd. C-29/Y-1, C-Block, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095 PAN No.AACCR3682E Vs. DCIT Circle – 19(1) Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 08.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Revenue in its appeal challenge the order of the learned CIT(A) and deleting the addition made in respect of alleged bogus sales of Rs.4,80,25,220/- to Rishab Trading Company. In the cross objection the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) that the notice issued u/s. 148 was time barred both the initial notice dated 24.05.2021 under old regime on the ground that it was issued the expiry of 6 years as well as the new notice u/s. 148 dated 22.04.2022 pursuant to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision the case of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal is time barred. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted brief synopsis as under :- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 4. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal, the learned Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 Counsel for the assessee stated that both the notices were barred by limitation. 5. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed before us. 6. As we could be seen from the above table the initial notice u/s. 148 under old regime was issued on 24.05.2021 beyond the due date i.e. 31.03.2021. Even the notice dated 22.07.2022 pursuant to the decision of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal is barred by limitation for the reason that the due date as per the formula set by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal case, expired on 18.07.2022. Thus, we observed that the initial notice dated 24.05.2021 as well as the notice dated 22.07.2022 pursuant to the decisions of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal case all barred by limitation and consequently the assessment framed based on such notices is bad in law the same is hereby quashed Ground No.1 of cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Since we have allowed cross objection on legal ground the other ground raised in the cross objection are not gone into at this stage. Since we have quashed the reassessment on legal issue the appeal of the revenue became infructuous. 7. In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025 SD/- /- SD/- [M. BALAGANESH] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUTNANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:28.11.2025 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "