SANJAY GUPTA,DELHI V. ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD, DELHI

ITA 1629/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Gupta, the appellant, who contested the reassessment order passed by the AO for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The AO had made a substantial addition to Gupta's income based on a reassessment initiated by a notice under section 148, which was later challenged. The CIT(A) initially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes but referred the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment. Gupta's primary contention was the procedural impropriety and jurisdictional issues surrounding the reassessment notice, including the absence of a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) and the lack of jurisdiction of the ITO ward involved. The ITAT, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court and other benches, found the notice to be time-barred under the applicable laws, leading to the quashing of both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841406 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Honeywell Exim Private Limited vs. ACIT, Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJU GOEL A ND B.L
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 131

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1629/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) Sanjay Gupta, 68 Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi-110025. PAN-AAHPG5620R Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Manju Goel and B.L. Gupta, CAs Department by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: This appeal of Assessee is against order dated 20.01.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] arising out of assessment order dated 31.05.2023 of the Ld. Assessing Officer/ Assessment Unit u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.15,18,530/-. The return was processed on 07.05.2015. As per information uploaded by the ITO (Inv.)-1 (1), New Delhi in the matter of Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) in the case of assessee, Ld. AO passed order Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1629/Del/2025 Sanjay Gupta vs. Assessment Unit, ITD u/s 148A(d) of the I T Act dated 29.07.2022. Notice u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022, intimation dated 02.11.2022, notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.01.2023, notices u/s 143(2) dated 17.02.2023, 04.05.2023, notice u/s 131 dated 17.05.2023, notices u/s 142(1) dated 17.05.2023, 24.05.2023 and notice u/s 131 dated 25.05.2023 were issued the assessee which were partly complied with. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 31.05.2023 made addition of Rs. 9,59,27,490/-. 3. Against order dated 31.05.2023 of Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed for statistical purposes and the case was referred back to the AO for making a fresh assessment within the time limit set by the Finance Act, 2024. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant assessee filed present appeal on following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CITIA) is bad in law and against the principles of equity and justice. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment order passed us 147 r.w.s 143(3) by treating it as assessment order u/s 147 r.ws 144 of the Income tax act, 1961 3. Than Ld. CITIA) has erred in law and on facts by completely ignoring the grounds of appeal filed mainly. a. That the notice u/s 148 dated 30/06/2021 and 29/07/2022 were issued without quoting of mandatory DIN. b. That the ITO ward 13113 had no jurisdiction to reassess the case. c. That addition based on the FIR filed was quashed by Deli High court. d. That the list on the basis of which addition was made was unsigned and vague. e. Addition without rejecting the affidavit filed by the assessee is bad in law. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1629/Del/2025 Sanjay Gupta vs. Assessment Unit, ITD f. Not allowing to cross Amit Sharma whose statement was relied upon to make the addition. g. That the relevant material i.e. copy of TEP was not provided to the assessee. h. That the alimony of Rs 3.5 er was granted to assessee's daughter which include expenditure of both bride and groom 4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the set- aside CT(A) order be canceled and the original order passed and the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B is void ab initio so original order also be treated as invalid or any other order which this hon 'ble court deems fit and proper be passed in favour of the assessee. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal or at any time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) by treating it as assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that following facts: Event Date Period/Limit Implication Normal 6-Year Limit 31/03/2021 For AY 2014-15, the 6- year limit under the old section Extended Limit (TOLA) 31/06/2021 The time limit was extended by the TOLA to this date. This is the last day the AO could take action under the old law. Initial Notice Issued 30/06/2021 This is the date the old section 148 notice was issued. This date is now the date of the deemed section 148A(b) show-cause notice. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1629/Del/2025 Sanjay Gupta vs. Assessment Unit, ITD Surviving Time Zero Days Time remaining on 30/06/2021 (the last permissible day) is Zero. This is the fatal flaw under the Rajeev Bansal interpretation. New Section 148 Notice 29/07/2022 The AO issued the consequential 148 notice here. Issue more than one year after the final deadline of 30/06/2021. So, the section 148 of the Act notice dated 29.07.2022 is time barred and invalid and void ab initio. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. From examination of record in light of Ld. AO, on completion of reassessment proceedings had passed order dated 31.05.2023, in pursuance to notice u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022. 7.1 A Co-ordinate Bench in case of Honeywell Exim Private Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No.6033/Del/2024 dated 15.10.2025 has held as under: “6. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that initial notice dated 30.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act was issued which is on page 37 of the paper books. Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 16.05.2022 at pages 40 and 41 of the paper books were issued as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued along with order dated 30.06.2022 under Section ITA No.6033/Del/2024 8 148A(d) of the Act with prior approval of Ld. PCIT at pages 62 to 67 of the paper books. Notice under Section 148 dated 30.06.2022 was barred by limitation as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, cited supra. 6.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, decided on 24.03.2025 in paras 8, 11 & 12 held as under: “8. In a subsequent decision in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754, the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1629/Del/2025 Sanjay Gupta vs. Assessment Unit, ITD behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of the said decision. Paragraphs 19 (e) and 19 (f) of the said decision are relevant and are set out below: - \"(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 the 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 the 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: Assessment Year (1) Within 3 Years (2) Expiry Limitation read with TOLA for (2) (3) Within six Years (4) Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (5) 2013-2014 31.03.2017 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2020 TOLA not applicable 2014-2015 31.03.2018 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2020 TOLA not applicable 2015-2016 31.03.2019 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2020 TOLA not applicable 2016-17 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-18 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not applicable (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, 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 the TOLA. 11. In the present case the impugned notice was issued on 27.07.2022, which was admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Since TOLA was not applicable in respect of the said notices under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra), the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 12. ………………………..” Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1629/Del/2025 Sanjay Gupta vs. Assessment Unit, ITD 7.2 The time limit as per TOLA was 30.06.2021. So, notice dated 29.07.2022 being time barred and invalid is set aside as per ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal vs. Union of India reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Therefore, the impugned orders of Ld.AO and Ld. CIT(A) are quashed. As legal ground has been decided, the Grounds of appeal are left open. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the Open Court 23.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/-/- -/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23.02.2026 *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "