SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 5833/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shivani Tayal, the appellant, who contested the reassessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary contention was the legality of the notice issued under section 148, which was deemed to be a show cause notice under section 148A(b) due to amendments in the law. The appellant argued that the notice was time-barred and the reassessment was conducted without proper jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, found that the notice was indeed issued beyond the permissible time limit, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633659 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT, Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v/s Income-tax Officer, Pushpa devi Shivlal Rathi v/s ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGINI HANDA; ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DARTED
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 132; 69C; 15

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Shivani Tayal C-27, Shop No.9-10, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi PAN: ANDPT8647E Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) dated 22/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds of Appeal are as under:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ex-parte order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\") under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") is patently illegal. erroneous, bad in law and on facts, without affording opportunity to the Appellant for a fair hearing and is against the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Appellant in limine, without appreciating the bonafide and unavoidable reasons for the delay of ten days in filing the appeal. 2 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is time- barred, invalid and without jurisdiction as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,35,21,188/- under section 69C of the Act by holding the same as bogus purchases from Shri Amit Kumar (Prop M/s Rishabh Trading Company). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Ld. AO has not provided any material for reopening of the assessment. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition based on an order where the Ld. AO has reopened on the basis of information which is grossly incorrect, contradictory, inconsistent and incapable of being acted upon; there are two show cause notices under section 148A(b) of the Act based on different information; no inquiry mandated under section 148A(a) of the Act has been conducted; order is based on non-application of mind and without disposing off objections of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the order dated 23.07.2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act is patently illegal and contains three different allegations in respect of the same amount i.e. to verify bogus sales of Rs. 1,35,21,188; to tax long term capital gain claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act on sale of scripts during the impugned AY and also that the amount of Rs. 1,35,21,188 represents bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition despite the fact that notice u/s 148 was issued without a document identification number and therefore, the same is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition despite the fact that the approval of specified authority 3 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO under section 151 of the Act has not been provided despite askance. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO who did not even confront adverse material relied upon to the Appellant and also erred in not providing cross-examination of adverse material and statements used against the Appellant despite askance. 10. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, rescind, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 5,03,310/-. A notice u/s 148 of the Act came to be issued on the Assessee on 23/06/2021 by following the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment dated 04/05/2022 in Civil appeal No. 3005/2025 in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and ors, the said notice dated 23/06/2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act has been considered to a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of Section 148A(b) Act has been provided to the Assessee by issuing show cause notice darted 25/05/2022 requiring the Assessee as to why notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued on her. In response, the Assessee filed submission dated 10/06/2022, which has not been found to be 4 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO satisfactory by the A.O. and consequentially the order u/s 148A (d) of the Act was passed on 23/07/2022 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 23/07/2022. 4. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 144B of the Act on 27/01/2023 against the Assessee by determining the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,40,24,500/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/01/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 10 days. The Assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that delay of 10 days was due to bonafide reason that the representative of the Assessee has failed to represent the Assessee during the assessment proceedings and has not even informed the fact of passing of the assessment order on time, which resulted in delay of 10 days in filing the Appeal. However, the delay of 10 days has not been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Appeal for delay in latches on 22/11/2024. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the groundsmentioned above. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed grave error in dismissing the Appeal for delay in latches of 10 days though the Assessee has narrated sufficient reason to condoned the delay. Thus, the Ld. Assessee's 5 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO Representative also submitted that the issue involved in the present Appeal on its merit is fully covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 1667 70 (S.C). 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 23/07/2022 was barred by limitation, therefore, the assessment order passed pursuant to the said notice is liable to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel by providing detailed chart regarding various dates and events, submitted that the time limit to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act as per Section 149 as amended by Finance Act, 2021 as per Rajeev Bansal’s case could be till 17/06/2022. Since the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 23/07/2022, the same is barred by limitation which renders whole assessment proceedings as null and void. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act as per Finance Act 2021 has been issued well within the period of limitation in compliance with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra), thus submitted that the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the Appeal of the Assessee, dismissed the same as the Appeal was filed with a delay of 10 days. Though the Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay narrating the cause for the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in not condoning the delay of 10 days and dismissing the Appeal for delay in latches. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra). Considering the fact that the issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and finding no fruitful object will be achieved if the issue is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal by adjudicating the issue of limitation to issue Notice under Section 148 of the Act. 9. In the present case, the notice under erstwhile provision of Section 148 of the Act was issued on 23/06/2021 under the provision of Section 148 of the Act i.e.prior to substitution of Section 148 by Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01/04/2021. 7 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment dated 04/05/2022 in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, deeming the notice issued under the erstwhile Section 148 of the Act as Notice under Section 148A (b) of new Law as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and directing that material/information be given in 30 days from date of the said order and Assessees shall reply within two weeks thereafter. 11. The Ld. A.O. issued a letter u/s 148A (b) of the Act on 25/05/2022pursuant to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). The time limit to file reply was till 10/06/2022 and the Assessee filed reply on the same day. The time excluded as per third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as per Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Rajeev Bansal’s case is from 23/06/2021 to 10/06/2022 i.e. from the date of original 148 notice which was deemed as show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act till the supply of the material and time allowed to the Assessee to file the reply. The time available/left to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act as per Section 149 of the Act read with TOLA was 7 days i.e: from 23/06/2021 to 30/06/2021. However, in the present case, notice under Section148 of the Actwas issued on 23/07/2022, which is barred by limitation. 8 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 12. In an identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT reported in 2025 (4) TMI 1351in ITA No. 6140/MUM/2024 and 6167/MUM/2024 vide order dated 13/03/2025, held as under:- “13. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In order to decide the issue at hand, it is, at the outset, relevant to note that the provisions of section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, which provides the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and the same reads as follows: - \"Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year -- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under 9 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 8 the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation -- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, \"asset\" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.\" 14. Therefore, from the plain reading of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act, it is evident that no notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act. Further, clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act provides the time period of 10 years to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. We find that the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act specifically provides that no notice under section 148 of the Act, as per the amended provisions, can be issued at any time for assessment year beginning on or before 01/04/2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of section 149(1)(b), as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. 15. Section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, reads as follows: - \"Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, -- ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 9 (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); 10 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. Explanation.-- In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.\" 16. From the plain reading of section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, it is evident that the same provides period of 4 years, up to 6 years, and up to 16 years for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, provided the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the time limit of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2013-14, expired on 31/03/2018, and the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31/03/2020. Therefore, in the present case, the time period covered under the provisions of the TOLA, i.e. from 20/03/2020 ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 10 to 31/03/2021, only includes 30/03/2020, i.e., 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is evident from the record that the original notice under section 148 of the Act, which was deemed to be a notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish 11 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO Agarwal (supra), was issued on 29/06/2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) in paragraph- 114(b) held that the TOLA will continue to apply to the Act after 01/04/2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Act falls for completion between 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021. Therefore, applying the aforesaid ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that as the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expires on 31/03/2020, which fell within the period from 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021, therefore, the notice issued on 29/06/2021, which was deemed to be noticed under section 148A(b) of the Act, is covered under the extended time limit till 30/06/2021 provided under the TOLA. 17. As regards the submission of the learned DR that the time period from the date of issuance of the deemed show cause notice till the date of filing of response by the assessee shall be excluded under the third proviso to section 149 of the Act, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-106 and 107 of its decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra), observed as follows: - \"106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and materials relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirty days from the date of the judgment. A show cause notice is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. Due to the legal ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2014-15) 11 fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction 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 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. 107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assesses to respond to the show cause notice under section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes \"the time or extended time allowed to 12 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 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 assesses 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 Section 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 effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices.\" 18. From the perusal of the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that while computing the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148, the time during which the show cause notice was stayed till the supply of relevant information or material by the AO and further period of two weeks allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice should be excluded. We find that while examining the validity of notices issued from 01/04/2021 to 30/06/2021 under the old regime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), analysing the interplay of Ashish Agarwal (supra) with the TOLA, in paragraph-108 of its judgment observed as follows: - \"108. The Income Tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under Section 148, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 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 effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow from the fiction. 163 Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income Tax 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 Section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by 13 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30 June 2021.\" 19. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the surviving time under the Act read with the TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notice, including issuance of re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act under the new regime. While explaining the methodology for computation of the surviving or balance time limit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-112 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed as follows: - \"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.\" 20. Therefore, the surviving/balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30/06/2021. Since, in the present case, we find that the period of 6 years ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 13 from the end of the relevant assessment year expires on 31/03/2020, which falls within the time period from 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021, in order to compute the surviving/balance time as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-108, it is relevant to note the following dates: - S. No. Particulars Dates 1 Period of Limitation under the Old Act 31.03.2020 2 First Notice issued u/s 14829.06.2021 3 Extended Limitation as per the TOLA 30.06.2021 4 Surviving Time 2 Days 5 Date of Decision of Ashish Agarwal 04.05.2022 6 Notice u/s 148A(b) 24.05.2022 14 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 7 Time Given 30 Days 8 Assessee's Reply 24.06.2022 9 Order u/s 148A(d) 28.07.2022 10 Second Notice u/s 14828.07.2022 21. Therefore, computing the surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Revenue had only 2 days (i.e., between 29/06/2021 to 30/06/2021) to issue notice under section 148 of the Act of the new regime in the present case, i.e. till 26/06/2022, after receipt of the response from the assessee on 24/06/2022 to the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. However, undisputedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 28/07/2022, i.e., 32 days after the surviving/balance time period as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). 22. We find that even if the benefit of the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act is granted to the Revenue, since the remaining period in the present case, after the exclusion of time period as provided in the third proviso to section 149, is less than 7 days, even then the notice dated 28/07/2022 under ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 14 section 148 of the Act was issued much beyond the 7 days' extension provided in the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act. 23. As regards the other contention of the learned DR that as per the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has time period of one month from the end of the month in which the reply is received from the assessee, and therefore, since in the present case, the assessee filed its reply on 24/06/2022, the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is within the limitation period, we find that similar argument of the Revenue was negated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram BalramBuildhome (P.) Ltd. v/s Income-tax Officer, reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi), by observing as follows: - \"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 15 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO 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. 71. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was received. Thus, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act (both dated 30.07.2022) are within the prescribed period. This contention is without merit as it does not take into account that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act necessarily required to be completed within the period available for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the time available to the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was necessarily truncated and the same was required to be passed on or before 12.07.2022. The fourth proviso to Section 149 of the Act did not come into play as the time period available for the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was in excess of the seven days. 72. In view of the above, we find merit in Mr.Sehgal's contention that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of limitation. 73. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act; the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act; and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 framed under Section 147 of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14, are set aside. Pending application is also disposed of.\" 24. Therefore, in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision cited supra, we do not find any merits in the aforesaid submission of the learned DR, and the reliance placed by the learned DR upon the decision of the SMC Bench of the Tribunal in Pushpa devi Shivlal Rathi v/s ITO, in ITA No. 1995/Pun./2024, dated 04/12/2024 is also of no relevance. 25. Therefore, having considered the provisions of the Act, pre as well as post the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the TOLA, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 16 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), we are of the considered view that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is barred by limitation period specified under section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed.” 13. Considering the above facts and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), we are of the opinion that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 23/07/2022 is barred by the period specified u/s 149 of the Act. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed. 14. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 13.06.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 17 ITA No. 5833/Del/2024 Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO "