MANJUSHA MITTAL,DELHI V. ITO WARD 29(1), DELHI

ITA 5065/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manjusha Mittal against the reassessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary legal issue was the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which initiated the reassessment. The Tribunal examined whether the notice was within the permissible time limit as per the new law and relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal referenced several key decisions, including those from the Supreme Court and the High Court, which clarified the application of TOLA and the limitation period for issuing reassessment notices. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was time-barred and thus the reassessment was invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778671 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Deepak Aggarwal Vs. DCIT, Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal, ACIT Vs. Nehal Rashid Shah, Deepak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"1 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 5065/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Manjusha Mittal Flat No. B-4, A-16, Shantikunj, Near Vasant Kunj, Mehrauli, Prabhu Marg, Church Road, Vasant Kunj Delhi Vs ITO Ward- 29 (1) Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADLPN9180E Assessee by: Sh. Abhishek Jain, CA Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the NFAC, Delhi DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1079075838(1) dated 30.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Printed from counselvise.com 2 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself initiated by the learned AO vide notice u/s. 148 issued on 30.07.2022 to the assessee. It is made clear that the assessment year involved herein is A.Y.2013-14. 4. This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in Deepak Aggarwal Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2307/Del/2025 decided on 23.07.2025 has already settled the issue upto A.Y. 2015-16, in assessee’s favour in the new reopening regime as under :- “2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in the case of the assessee a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law which is barred by limitation since the provisions of taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) (TOLA) are not applicable for the AY 2015- 16 as held by ITA No.2307/Del/2025 4 the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. in WP(c) 2558/2023 dated 24.03.2025. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepak Steels & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT and Others in Civil Appeal No.5177/2025 dated 02.04.2025 noted that the Revenue made a concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing off the appeal in the case of Printed from counselvise.com 3 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) (SCC) Online SC 2693, that for the AY 2015-16 notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA. Ld. Counsel also submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Nehal Rashid Shah in SLP (Civil) Diary No. (S) 57209/2024 dated 4.4.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of these decisions the reassessment framed for the AY 2015-16 based on the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022, is time barred and bad in law. 4. Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly in this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 under new law based on which the reassessment for the ITA No.2307/Del/2025 5 AY 2015-16 was framed by the AO on 31.5.2023. The reassessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution by the assessee. 6. In the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) the Jurisdictional High Court considered whether reassessment completed for the AY 2015-16 based on a notice issued u/s 148 and the viz a viz the applicability of the provisions of TOLA and based on the concession of the Revenue that for the AY 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 1.4.2021 will have to be dropped as Printed from counselvise.com 4 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA, held that the notice issued under 148 was beyond the period of limitation and consequently the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others (supra) quashed the notices issued u/s 148 observing as under: - “2. These appeals arise from 'the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2823, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- \"1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for ITA No.2307/Del/2025 6 Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record. 2. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) Mo.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Mo.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to Printed from counselvise.com 5 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. \" 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 6 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of ITA No.2307/Del/2025 7 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” 8. Above decisions squarely applies to the fact situation of the assessee and therefore respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the notices issued u/s 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for reopening the assessment for the AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment made based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, the impugned reassessment order having been made pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 the reassessment order is hereby held to be bad in law and the same is quashed. Ground Nos. B, C & D of grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 5. I adopt the aforegoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to hold the impugned reopening as barred by limitation on very terms Printed from counselvise.com 7 5065/Del/2025 Manjusha Mittal ordered accordingly. All other findings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/10/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 13/10/2025 *NEHA, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "