JAIDEEP CHOPRA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-44(6), DELHI

ITA 6018/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jaideep Chopra against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the reassessment order issued by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was the procedural validity of the notice under Section 148, which was challenged on grounds of being time-barred and lacking proper service. The Tribunal examined the timelines and procedural compliance in issuing the reassessment notice, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, which emphasized strict adherence to procedural norms and timelines in reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838194 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI & Ors. Vs Rajeev Bansal, Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN GULATI
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Onus to prove; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"6018_DEL_2025 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6018/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Jaideep Chopra 22, Shivgiri CHS 4th Floor 4 Bungalows, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 Maharashtra Vs ITO Ward-44(6) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACXPC4917H Assessee by :Shri Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department by :Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI: 1. The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.12.2024, passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10302267 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, vide order dated 12.05.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com 6018_DEL_2025 2 | P a g e “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. That the notice under Section 250 was not served through proper means and bore no address or mode of service, and was only uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, which went unnoticed. This constitutes defective service and renders the order liable to be set aside. 3. That the adjournment request duly filed by the appellant upon becoming aware of the notice was ignored and no further notice or opportunity of hearing was provided. 4. That the reassessment order under Section 147 is bad in law as it is based on vague and general allegations without any specific incriminating material being disclosed to the assessee. 5. That the order under Section 148A(d) was passed in a mechanical and non-speaking manner despite the detailed reply filed by the assessee. 6. That no confrontation or cross-examination of any person or entry provider was allowed, and no material forming the “information” under Section 148A was shared with the assessee. 7. That the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed, being in violation of Section 148A, Section 149(1)(b) (bar of limitation), and CBDT Circular No. 03/2021 regarding proper service and approval requirements. 8. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee had not entered into any transaction with M/s Aroma International and the burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the assessee without discharge of primary onus by the Department. 9. That the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Del) has held that Printed from counselvise.com 6018_DEL_2025 3 | P a g e reassessment based on vague information, without proper disclosure and without effective opportunity, is invalid—squarely applying to the facts of the present case. 10. That the addition made of Rs. 5,00,000 is without any basis, evidence, or justification and deserves to be deleted. 11. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law, and are liable to be quashed. 12. That the appellant craves leave to amend, modify, or add to the grounds at the time of hearing.” [ 3. At the outset, Ld. AR has pointed out that the notice u/s 148 issued for A.Y. 2013-14, is time-barred as the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of of UOI & Ors. Vs Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). The relevant table of dates has been filed which is as under: Sl. No. Particulars Date/Period A Date of original notice issued u/s 148 29.06.2021 B Time remaining till 30.06.2021 1Day C Date of notice issued u/s 148A(b) 18.05.20222 D Due date for filing of reply 01.06.2022 E Reply/ objection filed on 31.05.2022 F Extended dated for Notice u/s 148(E+B) 01.06.2022 G Actual date of notice issued u/s 148 30.06.2022 4. Ld. DR on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com 6018_DEL_2025 4 | P a g e 5. After hearing both the parties, and on perusal of material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the matter stands squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 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 assessing officers to the assesses 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 assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149. 111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit Printed from counselvise.com 6018_DEL_2025 5 | P a g e specified under Section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under Section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under Section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred. ” 6. In the light of above, we note that the notice u/s 148 issued on 30.06.2022 is beyond the time available to the Ld. AO. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we, hereby, quash the notice u/s 148 of the Act as the same has been issued beyond the extended time period available to the Ld. AO. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18.02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "