INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA V. HARISH CHANDER SHARMA, LUDHIANA

CO 13/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs.5,06,20,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing unexplained cash credits. The assessee, Shri Harish Chander Sharma, argued that these credits were legitimate business receipts. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural validity of the reassessment notice, particularly its issuance beyond the permissible time limit as defined by recent Supreme Court rulings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360638 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)], CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. [245 ITR 492 (Del.)], Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022 SCC Online SC 543], Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajeev Bansal & Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1313], Kanwaljeet Kaur Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 171 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAV BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL; C.A
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Rule of consistency; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c); 68; 6; 10

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM &SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 1029/Chd/ 2024 िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The ITO Ward-7(1), Ludhiana बनाम Shri Harish Chander Sharma H.No. 155, Street No. 14, Bachan Singh Nagar, Bank Road, Haibowal, Ludhiana, Punjab-141007 ˕ायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AGGPC0072N अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent Cross Objection No. 13/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1029/Chd/ 2024) िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harish Chander Sharma H.No. 155, Street No. 14, Bachan Singh Nagar, Bank Road, Haibowal, Ludhiana, Punjab-141007 बनाम The ITO Ward-7(1), Ludhiana ˕ायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AGGPC0072N अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/05/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2014- 15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.5,06,20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961on account of unexplained cash credits. 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.2,05,100/-. Based on information received from the Insight Portal indicating suspicious credit transactions amounting to Rs.5,06,20,000/- in a Yes Bank account held by the assessee, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act. After issuing notice under section 148 and considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147/144B and made an addition of Rs.5,06,20,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. 3. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he was running a proprietary business as an \"Arthiya\" (commission agent)and the alleged credits represented business receipts routed through bank for purchase and sale of agricultural commodities and securities. The assessee also contended that the bank transactions were regular, the average daily balance was negligible, and the credits were fully explained as pass-through business receipts. It was further argued that in preceding assessment years with identical facts, similar additions were not made, invoking the principle of consistency. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)] and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. [245 ITR 492 (Del.)]. 4. After considering the submissions and the evidence furnished, including the pattern of bank transactions and prior assessments, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s explanation and deleted the addition. The CIT(A) held that the AO had failed to consider the nature of business, the turnover pattern, and the evidence correlating the credits and debits. It was also held that no contrary finding had been brought by the AO despite having the opportunity to verify the account. The CIT(A) found the addition based on mere credits without considering the business context to be unjustified. 5. Aggrieved by the said deletion, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The main grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the 3 addition was rightly made in the absence of any cogent explanation or documentary evidence from the assessee explaining the source of credits of Rs.5,06,20,000/- in the Yes Bank account. The Revenue contends that the findings of the AO were based on tangible material indicating suspicious banking transactions not commensurate with the returned income. 6. The assessee also filed a cross-objection which is barred by limitation by 101 days for which he has filed condonatiion application which is placed on record. 7. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. In the CO. Assessee submitted that that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashish Aggarwal and Union of India VS Rajeev Bansal & Ors. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) 9. The Ld.AR had drawn our attention to the relevant paragraph of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. He had filled the following written submissions :- 1. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of retailing and trading of agricultural commodities and other securities as Arthiya. He filed ITR for AY 2014-15 on 31.03.2015, declaring income of Rs. 2,05,100/-, which was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the ld. AO received information from the Investigation Wing/Insight Portal with regard to the credit entries in the bank account of the assessee, the ld. AO issued notice on 30.06.2021 under unamended section 148 (copy appended at page 201 of APB), prior to the Supreme Court judgment in Ashish Agarwal (2022) 326 CTR (SC) dtd.04.05.2022. 2. Vide judgment in Ashish Agarwal, it was held that all earlier notices issued for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 during 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 though are bad, but they shall be treated as deemed notice u/s 148A(b) and the revenue shall provide all relied upon material to the assessee alongwith a fresh notice which shall then complete the process of issuing notice u/s 148A(b). Based on this, in our case, the original notice dtd. 30.06.2021 was treated as deemed notice u/s 148A(b). The ld. AO, complying the directions in Ashish Agarwal further issued SCN u/s 148A(b) on 30.05.2022 (copy appended at Page 202 of APB), requiring 4 response by 13.06.2022. The assessee filed his detailed reply on 10.06.2022 explaining the nature of business and transactions (copy of reply appended at page 204-206 of APB). Then, the ld. AO passed order u/s 148A(d) on 28.07.2022 and consequential notice u/s 148 was also issued on same date on 28.07.2022 (copy appended at page 206-208 of APB) 3. In assessment framed thereafter u/s 147, addition was made. But this addition was deleted by Worthy CIT(A). Against this, the Revenue has preferred appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA No. 1029/Chandi/2024 and the assessee has filed cross-objection in CO No. 13/Chandi/2025 raising legal ground against the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 dtd. 28.07.2022. An application dtd. 17.04.2025 u/r 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, has also been filed raising the same legal ground as under : “That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment proceedings and assessment order deserve to be quashed since the initiation, continuation as well as completion of the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 was void-ab- initio and more-so when it is in direct violation of law settled in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal 340 CTR 862 (SC).” 4. Our argument as to why and how the notice u/s 148 dtd. 28.07.2022 in our case has been issued beyond the limitation period is as under : 4.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal, has held that old notices issued u/s 148 (from 01.04.2021 to 30.6.2021) shall be treated as deemed show cause notices u/s 148A(b) and the assessee shall be allowed two weeks’ time to file reply in response to the said notice. However, issuance of final notice u/s 148 had to comply with limitation prescribed u/s 149 read with TOLA and Ashish Agarwal (supra). 4.2. After the decision in Ashish Agarwal, assessments in number of cases were framed. These assessees again filed Writ before various High Courts on number of issues which were allowed by number of High Courts. Then these matters reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in Rajeev Bansal [2024 (340) CTR 865 (SC)] which clarified the interplay between Ashish Agarwal with TOLA and held that : “106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the AO to provide relevant information and materials relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days from the date of the judgment. A show-cause notice is eectively issued in terms of s. 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the AO. Due to the legal ction, the AO were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the s. 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assessees. Therefore, the show-cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the AO provided the relevant information or material to the assessees in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined eect of the legal ction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show-cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1st April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and 5 material by the AO to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices. 107. The third proviso to s. 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assessees to respond to the show-cause notice under s. 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes \"the time or extended time allowed to the assessee.\" Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show-cause notice has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assessees to reply to the show-cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation of limitation given the third proviso to s. 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is : (i) the time during which the show-cause notices were eectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1st April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the AO to the assessees in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices. b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA 108. The IT Act read with TOLA extended the time-limit for issuing reassessment notices under s. 148, which fell for completion from 20th March, 2020 to 31st March, 2021, till 30th June, 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show-cause notices under the new regime with eect from. the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The eect of creating the legal ction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably ow from the ction.28 Therefore, the logical eect of the creation of the legal ction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the IT Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under s. 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time-limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30th June, 2021. 109. If this Court had not created the legal ction and the original reassessment notices were validly issued according to the provisions of the new regime, the notices under s. 148 of the new regime would have to be issued within the timelimits extended by TOLA. As a corollary, the reassessment notices to be issued in pursuance of the deemed notices must also be within the time-limit surviving under the IT Act read with TOLA. This construction gives full eect to the legal ction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and enables both the assessees and the Revenue to obtain the benet of all consequences owing from the ction.29 110. The eect of the creation of the legal ction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with eect from the date of issuance of s. 148 notices under the old regime which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the AO to the assessees in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assessees to reply to the show-cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to s. 149. 6 111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assessees to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the AO had to perform the following responsibilities : (i) consider the reply of the assessee under s. 149A(c) [sic-s. 148A(c)]; (ii) take a decision under s. 149A(d) [sic- s.148A(d)] based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under s. 148 if it was a t case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the AO was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time-limit. The surviving time-limit, as prescribed under the IT Act read with TOLA, was available to the AO to issue the reassessment notices under s. 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1st May, 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal ction, the deemed show-cause notices will also come into eect from 1st May, 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the AO will have sixty-one days (days between 1st May, 2021 and 30th June, 2021) to issue a notice under s. 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the AO after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18th June, 2022, the AO will have sixty-one days from 18th June, 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under s. 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time-limit for issuance of a notice under s. 148 of the new regime will end on 18th Aug., 2022. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assessees to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time-limit specied under s. 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the asst. yrs. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under s. 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an AO has to : (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under s. 149(1) of the new regime r/w TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specied under s. 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it aects the jurisdiction of the AO. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under s. 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time-limit surviving under the IT Act r/w TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time-limit will be time-barred. 114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that : a. After 1st April, 2021, the IT Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the IT Act after 1st April, 2021 if any action or proceeding specied under the substituted provisions of the IT Act falls for completion between 20th March, 2020 and 31st March, 2021; c. Sec. 3(1) of TOLA overrides s. 149 of the IT Act only to the extent of relaxing the time-limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under s. 148; d. TOLA will extend the time-limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specied under s. 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to s. 151 of the new regime is this: if the time-limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20th March, 2020 and 31st March, 2021, then the specied authority under s. 151(i) has extended time till 30th June, 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of s. 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time-limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20th March, 2020 and 31st March, 2021, then the specied authority under s. 151(2) has extended time till 31st March, 2021 to grant approval; 7 f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1st April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 g. The time during which the show-cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1st April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the AO to the assessees in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show- cause notices; and h. The AO were required to issue the reassessment notice under s. 148 of the new regime within the time-limit surviving under the IT Act r/w TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside” 4.3. As per s. 149(1)(b) of the pre-amended Act, the time limit to issue notice for AY 2014-15 was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, for AY 2014-15, the limitation under the old law expired on 31.03.2021. Since the original notice under unamended s. 148 was issued on 30.06.2021, the benefit of TOLA was sought. However, as clarified in Rajeev Bansal (supra), TOLA cannot revive a time-barred cause of action; it only extends an already surviving limitation period. Therefore, when the original notice was issued on 30.06.2021 i.e. the last date of TOLA period, the revenue had ZERO further days. Therefore, as per Rajeev Bansal, after following the procedure and timeline laid down in Ashish Agarwal, the revenue had ZERO surviving days to add. In our case the clock of timeline as per Ashish Agarwal expired on 13.06.2022 being the date uptowhich AO expected us to file reply to SCN u/s 148A(b). Therefore, 2nd round notice u/s 148 could have been issued only upto 13.06.2022, whereas it was issued on 28.07.2022 and hence beyond limitation period or surviving period. Hence is time- barred and void. 5. Following is the date-wise sequence of notices issued and proceedings conducted upto issuance of notice u/s 148 dtd. 28.07.2022 showing that the said notice has been issued beyond limitation period : Assessment year 2014-15 Notice u/s 148 issued on [Pre-judgment dated 04.05.2022 rendered in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal] 30.06.2021 Annexure 5 (Page 201 of PB) Surviving period/days before expiry of limitation on 30.06.2021 [Number of days computed by following formula: 30.06.2021 less date on which initial notice u/s 148 was issued] Zero days Notice u/s 148A(b) issued on following Ashish Agarwal 30.05.2022 Annexure 6 (Page 202 of PB) Date on which reply was required to be filed as per notice issued u/s 148A(b) 13.06.2022 Date on which reply was actually filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148A(b) 10.06.2022 Annexure 7 (Part of order u/s 148A(d) 8 Page 204-206) Last date to issue notice u/s 148 after considering the surviving period. 13.06.2022 Last date to issue notice u/s 148 after considering fourth proviso to s. 149 20.06.2022 Order u/s 148A(d) passed on 28.07.2022 Annexure 7 (Page 203-206 of PB) Notice u/s 148 issued on 28.07.2022 Annexure 8 (Page No. 207-208 of PB) Applicability of Rajiv Bansal judgement (Yes/No) Yes. Barred by Time Limitation The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal has categorically held that all notices u/s 148 issued after 01.04.2021 must comply with the new provisions of s. 149, and where the reassessment notice is issued beyond the surviving limitation period, the same is time-barred and invalid in law. The present notice fails both tests. After the above decision in Rajeev Bansal, involving AY of 2013-14 ог 2014-15, which could have involved this issue of issuance of 1st round notice during 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 and the 2nd round notice beyond surviving period as per Rajeev Bansal, also came up in number of decisions and the courts have quashed those notices and the consequential assessments. Few of those decisions are: i. Sunil Ghorawat vs ACIT, WP 3230/2023, Delhi HC ii. Cognyte Technologies Israel Ltd vs ACIT, WP 5373/2023, Delhi HC iii. Aggarwal Ornaments Ltd. vs ITO, WP 17566/2022, Delhi HC iv. Varun Goel vs DCIT, 1500/Del/2024, Delhi ITAT v. DCIT vs Kolte Patil Integrated Township Ltd., 2023/Pun/2024, Pune ITAT vi. DCIT vs Vinay Aggarwal, 29/RPR/2025, Raipur ITAT vii. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs DCIT, CO 282/Mum/2024, Mumbai ITAT viii. Uniquestar Gems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, 1035/Mum/2025, Mumbai ITAT 10. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. Before we deal with the contention of the 9 assessee, it is necessary to capture the dates and events relevant for deciding the matter, which are as under Chronology of Events and Corresponding Dates Date Event 31.03.2015 Original return of income filed showing total income of Rs.2,05,100/- 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 Period in which original notice under old Section 148 was issued (deemed under 148A as per SC judgment) 04.05.2022 Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agrawal (2022 SCC Online SC 543) 30.05.2022 Information provided to assessee under Section 148A(b) 10.06.2022 Assessee filed reply to notice under Section 148A(b) 13.06.2022 Deadline given to assessee for compliance (2 weeks from 30.05.2022) 28.07.2022 Speaking order passed under Section 148A(d); fresh notice under Section 148 issued 30.12.2022 First reply of the assessee to notice under Section 142(1) (as stated) 03.01.2023 Notice under Section 142(1) issued 13.01.2023 Compliance due for notice dated 03.01.2023 (not complied) 21.02.2023 Second notice under Section 142(1) issued 08.03.2023 Compliance and reply filed to second notice dated 21.02.2023 24.04.2023 Third notice under Section 142(1) issued 02.05.2023 Compliance due for third notice (not complied) 01.05.2023 Show Cause Notice issued to assessee to explain credit entries 06.05.2023 Due date to respond to SCN dated 01.05.2023 09.05.2023 Final assessment order passed under Sections 143(3)/147/144B Post 09.05.2023 Penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) 11. In the present case, the original notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was issued on 30.06.2021, which was the last permissible date for issuance of such notice under the extended limitation period. 11.1 Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022 SCC OnLine SC 543] dated 04.05.2022, the Revenue issued a fresh notice dated 30.06.2022 under section 10 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee submitted his reply to the said notice on 10.06.2022. 11.2 Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed a speaking order under section 148A(d) and issued a fresh notice under section 148 on 28.07.2022.It is the assessee’s contention that the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 is barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the statutorily permissible period. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajeev Bansal & Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1313], wherein the Hon’ble Court held that: “Once the clock started ticking, the Assessing Officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit.” 11.3 The Delhi Hon'ble High Court considered an identical issue in the case of Kanwaljeet Kaur Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax* [2025] 171 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi) image, it was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. The Division Bench of the Court in Ram Balram was called upon to deal with a live case and where it was directly called upon to answer whether the reassessment notice could be said to be sustainable when tested on the principles enunciated in Rajeev Bansal. The Division Bench of the Court in Ram Balram upon application of the salient principles propounded by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal came to hold as follows:- \"65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 under the statutory framework, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 66. By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 were extended till 30.06.20218. Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the date of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal is required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 11 67. Additionally, the period from the date of decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had issued the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. 68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 - the period of two weeks -is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date. 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022. 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation.\" 20. The Court in Ram Balram was concerned with a notice for reassessment which had come to be issued on 01 June 2021 and thus falling within the broad Section 3(1) TOLA period of 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021. The Court thus firstly proceeded to exclude the 29 days period falling between 01 June 2021 to 30 June 2021. 21. It proceeded further to then factor in the period commencing from 01 June 2021 upto 04 May 2022 with the latter being the date when the judgment in Ashish Agarwal came to be pronounced, and which period too was liable to be excluded in light of what the Supreme Court had held in Rajeev Bansal. In Ram Balram, following the decision in Ashish Agarwal, the AO is stated to have issued a notice under Section 148A(b) on 30 May 2022. Thus, the Division Bench in Ram Balram correctly proceeded to recognize the period between 04 May 2022 to 30 May 2022 as being liable to be removed from consideration for purposes of computation of limitation. 22. It then proceeded further to factor in the period of two weeks within which the assessee was called upon to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) and which period is statutory liable to be excluded by virtue of the Third Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 23. The commencement point computed in accordance with the aforesaid was thus identified to be 13 June 2022, when the assessee had ultimately furnished a reply to the notice under Section 148A(b). The Court ultimately found that the period of limitation for issuance of a notice for reassessment would have expired on 12 July 2022 and consequently the reassessment notice dated 30 July 2022 being liable to be quashed and set aside. 24. A similar factual position emerges from the disclosures which appear in W.P.(C) 6849/2023 and where it was fairly conceded that the reassessment notice 12 would be liable to be recognized as being within the period of limitation when tested on the broad principles identified above. This emerges from the following summary chart which was placed for our consideration by Ms. Jha, learned senior counsel who represented that writ petitioner:- S. No. SC Paras 1. Assessment Year 2014-15 2. Period of limitation u/s 149 [3 years or 6 years] 6 years 3. Original Period of limitation u/s 149 31.03.2021 4. Extended period of limitation as per IT Act read with TOLA 30.06.2021 Paras 65- 69 5. Sanction to be obtained u/s 151 till 30.06.2021 [within 6 years] PCIT 6. Date of original notice u/s 148 - deemed SCN u/s 148A (b) 23.04.2021 7. Time surviving from date of issuance of deemed SCN till expiry of period as extended by TOLA [from 23.04.2021 till 30.06.2021] 68 days Paras 109- 113 8. Period of deemed stay to be excluded as per 3rd proviso to section 149 [Date of Original 148 till date allowed to file reply to assessee] 23.04.2021 to 14.06.2022 Paras 105- 107 9. Last date for issuing notice u/s 148 [i.e., 14.06.2022+68 days] 21.08.2022 Para 77 10. Actual date of issuance of notice u/s 148 27.07.2022 11. Notice u/s 148 issued under new regime is within time period Para 77 25. The challenge to the reassessment notice on this score and insofar as W.P.(C) 6849/2023 is concerned, would thus necessarily fail. We additionally note that although we had required all the writ petitioners to submit disclosures in the aforesaid format, not all have been able to comply with the same. It is this facet which has weighed upon us to consider disposing of these writ petitions in terms indicated hereinafter. 26. Having identified the broad principles which would now govern the question of surviving time, we are of the considered opinion that rather than this Court undertaking the gargantuan exercise of examining individual facts, it would appear to be expedient to frame directions requiring the AOs to frame an order with respect to the individual reassessment notices in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and of this Court in Ram Balram, T.K.S Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. 11.4 Therefore, the surviving time for the Assessing Officer to complete the process under section 148A(d) and issue the notice under section 148 was only one day, i.e., till 11.06.2022. 11.5. The deemed SCN was issued on 30/06/2021 and the notice under section 148A (b) was issued on 30/05/2022 which was replied on 10/06/2022 therefore the last date for issuing the notice (surviving period for issuing the notice was upto 13/06/2022 only or at the most 20/06/2022 as per fourth proviso to Section 149 of the Act. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer passed the 13 order under Section 148a (d) and issued a fresh notice under Section 148 only on 28/07/2022, which is clearly beyond the surviving time limit and hence is barred by limitation. The above said view is duly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kanwaljeet (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation. 11.6 In view of the above facts and legal position, the notice issued under section 148 dated 28.07.2022 is held to be without jurisdiction and bad in law. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed. 12. The cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed. 13. As we have allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/05/2025 Sd/- Sd- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखासद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "