SATISH BATRA,NEW DELHI V. ACIT CIRCLE 49(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3859/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Satish Batra against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning a reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the validity of the notice dated 31.03.2021, which was argued to be issued without jurisdiction as it was unsigned and not properly served. The assessee's representative argued that the notice was effectively issued on 01.04.2021, as evidenced by its digital signing and email dispatch, which was after the legal cutoff for applying the old reassessment provisions. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, concluded that the notice was indeed issued on 01.04.2021 and thus the new provisions apply, leading to the conclusion that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840100 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Suman Jeet Agarwal [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del), Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, DCIT Vs. SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3411/Del/2024, Mukesh Khurana Vs. DCIT ITA No.3902, 3923 & 3925/Del/2024, Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY WADHWA; RAGINI HANDA; DEEPANSHU KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘F’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3859/ DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Satish Batra Vs. ACIT Flat No.1, Plot No.7 & 8 Circle 49(1), Community Centre, Naraina Indl. Area Delhi Phase 1, New Delhi (PAN: AAGPB7871G) ASSESSEE BY : Shri. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv & Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv & Shri. Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026 Date of Order : 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘ld. CIT(A)’) dated 15.04.2025 for AY 2015-16. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’), dated 31.03.2021 was issued on 01.04.2021 which is without jurisdiction, illegal and void ab initio. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 Further, it was submitted that the notice issued on 31.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act was issued which is unsigned notice. It was brought to our notice that the above said notice was uploaded on the ITBA Portal only on 01.04.2021 and was also sent via email on 01.04.2021. He submitted that as per the ITBA portal, it clearly demonstrates that the date of issuance of notice dated 31.03.2021 is actually on issued 01.04.2021. Further, it was submitted that the same notice was sent to the assessee on registered email address only on 01.04.2021 at 08.24 am. In this regard it was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del) that when a notice u/s 148 of the Act is considered to be issued, particularly when there is a discrepancy between the date mentioned in notice and the date of its receipt, then the Hon’ble Delhi High Court categorized the following categories in relation to such notices as under:- 1. Category A: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is dated 31st March, 2021 or before but digitally signed on or after 1st April, 2021. ] 2. Category B: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is dated 31st March. 2021 or before, digitally not signed however sent and received on or after 1st April. 2021. 3. Category C: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is dated 31stMarch, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before 31st March, 2021, however sent and received on or after 1st April, 2021. 4. Category D: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is dated 31st March, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before 31st March, 2021, no service either by e-mail or by post or any other mode and assessee came to know later on through Portal or receipt of subsequent notice under Section 142(1). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 5. Category E: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is dated 31st March, 2021 or before, manually signed, no service by e-mail but despatched through speed post on or after 1st April, 2021. 3. Ld. AR of the assessee, referring to the above decision submitted that, the case of the assessee squarely falls in category B i.e., the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021, was not issued on the same day not digitally signed and received by the assessee on 01.04.2021 via email. He further submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court hold as under:- 6. The Hon'ble court took note that if the notices were held to be issued on or before 31.03.2021 then the provisions prior to enactment of Finance Act. 2021 would apply and if notices were held to be issued on or after 01.04.2021. then new regime i.e. provisions as amended by Finance Act. 2021 would apply and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 would be applicable. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for reference: \"2. Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration is whether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31st March, 2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices were validly issued under the unamended Section 149 of the Act of 1961 on or before 31st March 2021, then, the re-assessment proceedings would be governed by the unamended provisions of Section 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961 as they stood before 1st April, 2021. However, If this Court concludes that the impugned Notices were Issued on or after 01st April 2021. then. the new regime of Section 147. 148. 148A. 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961. shall govern these reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, would apply, In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021.\" 7. The Hon'ble court for Category B stated that if the time and date of dispatch as recorded is on or after 01.04.2021, then the notices are to be considered as show cause notices under section 148A(b) of the Act as per the direction of the apex court in Ashish Agarwal (Supra). Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for reference: Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 \"31.2. Category 'B': The Notices falling under category 'B' which were sent through the registered e mail ID of the respective JAOs, though not digitally signed are held to be valid. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine the date and time of its dispatch as recorded in the ITBA portal in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of issuance. If the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or after 1st of April. 2021. the Notices are to be considered as show-cause- notices under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.\" 4. By referring to the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was clearly held that when the notice was received by the assessee on 01.04.2021, therefore, the department had to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the newly inserted section 148 of the Act and further he stressed the findings that even in the income tax portal the notice was issued only on 01.04.2021. By relying on the decision of DCIT Vs. SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3411/Del/2024 and Mukesh Khurana Vs. DCIT ITA No.3902, 3923 & 3925/Del/2024 the coordinate Bench has held that the date on which notice was communicated to the assessee shall be considered as the date of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated in the year under consideration being assessment year 2015-16 is barred issued only on 01.04.2021, the provisions of amended section alone will be applicable. He further submitted that it is by limitation and covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal. Therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in the present case. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the issue of notice on 31.03.2021 should be taken as the proper date of issue of notice and submitted that mistakes in notice are covered by the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the relevant notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2021 for assessment year 2015-16 unsigned and also there is no evidence to show that when it was served on the assessee. For the sake of brevity it is reproduced below:- Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 7. Further, we noticed that assessee has brought on record e-proceedings from e-portal in the case of the assessee and the date mentioned for issue of notice u/s 148 is 01.04.2021, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below:- Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 8. Further it is also brought to our notice the email sent by the Assessing Officer to the assessee enclosing the notice u/s 148 was dated 01.04.2021 at 8:24:23 am IST, the same is reproduced below:- Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 9. From the above it is clear that the notice u/s 148 was issued only on 01.04.2021 not on 31.03.2021, as held in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal (Supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if the notice were held to be issued on or after 01.04.2021 then the new regime that is provisions as amended by Finance Act 2021 would apply. Therefore, in the given case also the notice was issued only on 01.04.2021, the amended provision in Finance Act 21 will be applicable. That being the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal is squarely applicable in the present case. In the case of Rajiv Bansal (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that revenue has conceded that all the notices for assessment year 2015-16 issued on or after 01.04.2021 will be dropped. 10. Respectfully, following the above decision, the assessment year reopened in the present case is relating to assessment year 2015-16, accordingly, the proceedings initiated u/s 148 is outside the limitation period. Hence, the proceeding initiated u/s 148 are directed to drop and void ab initio. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. Accordingly, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 25th February 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.3859/Del/2025 Dated:25.02.2026 *Mittali Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Assessee 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "