THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

ITA 5053/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the notices issued for reassessment were time-barred and not in accordance with the legal provisions. The tribunal examined the procedural validity of the notices and the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeev Bansal, which addressed the legal framework for issuing reassessment notices under the amended section 148 and section 149 of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826678 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal, Shivani Tayal vs. ITA number 5833/Del/2024, 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: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM RAJPAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Period of limitation; Reason to believe; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 132; 68

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2014-15 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society Shop No. 52-53, Saini School, Mohalla Saniyan, Hisar (Haryana)-125001, Hisar PAN: AADAT3893L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-14, Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellantby Sh. Prem Raj Pal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/01/2025 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 2 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 30.06.2025wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief as culled out from Para No. 5 of the impugned order are as under: “5. That appellant is a Non-Agri Thrift and Credit Co-Op. Society. ITR for the A.Y. 14-15 u/s 139(1) was not filed. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21-06-21. Thereafter, as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC Online SC 543) in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act issued between 01.04.21 to 30.06.21 is deemed to be the show cause notice issued under clause (b) of the Section 148A of the IT Act. Without closure of proceedings of notice u/s 148 dated 21-06-21, notice issued u/ s 148A(b) dated 28-05-22, notice again issued u/s 148 dated 27-07- 22 are not according to law. Notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 28/05/22 without providing material, information and documents and which has not been served as per Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules. Without providing proper opportunity order u/s 148A(d) of the Act has been passed on 27/07/22. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 27-07-22, which has no DIN and intimation letter for notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.07.22. Notice u/s 148 dated 27-07-22 is without digital signature and it has not been issued as per procedure and formats and standards for ensuring secured transmission of Electronic Communication. Notice u/s 148 dated 27-07-22 has also not been issued in faceless manner. We had filed income tax return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28-11-22 declaring an income Rs. 4660/-. Reply in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 19/01/23 and 02- 02-23 was submitted on 06-02-2023 along with statutory Audit report, balance sheet, Profit & Loss A/c, annexures, cash book, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 3 computation of income. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 14-03-23 and SCN Dated 17-04-23 were not served on my e-mail ID, which have been served on e-mail ID [e-mail], but our mail ID as per ITR filed is [e-mail]. Without affording proper opportunity and without service of notice Ld. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department has framed assessment on 19/05/23 after making an addition of Rs. 7,68,03,950/- on account of cash deposited in bank account no. 0337030100000071 maintained with J & K Bank. Without considering the documents, reply and ITR, assessment farmed is bad in law and may please be quashed. Addition made by Ld. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department is bad in law and may please be deleted and order dated 19-05-23 may please be quashed. This order has been challenged in appeal.” 3. We have noticed that the assessment order was passed under section 144B of the Act as it is noted in para 4.2 of the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has been issued show cause notice dated 17.04.2023 but the assessee has failed to comply with show cause notice, which reveals that the assessee has nothing to explain regarding the issue under consideration. Thereafter, the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,68,03,950/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and has taken ground no. 8, stating that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is time-barred. Further, the said notice has not been issued in the faceless manner. Ld. CIT(A) has disposed of said Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 4 ground along with 9 other grounds in para No. 7 of the impugned order. But on perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order, we have noticed that no finding has been returned with respect to the plea of notice under section 148 of the Act being barred by limitation. Further, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has presumed that all the notices have been received by the assessee as one notice dated 02.02.2023 was allegedly received by the assessee and further observed that there is presumption in favour of the department that earlier notices were served upon the appellant and therefore, the ground in respect of reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act was rejected and dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in: 1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act dated 19-05-23 vide order dated 30-06-25, which is without jurisdiction: 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,68,03,950/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, without affording adequate opportunity. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, as proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the Act is without there being any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 5 6. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, as order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by Ld. AO without providing copy of reasons, copy of approval granted by Specified Authority. 7. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, as notices u/s 142(1), 143(2), 144B, 148A(b), 148, SCN, order u/s 148A(d) issued by Ld. AO have not been served, as all the notices have been sent on e-mail ID pan 2010 [e-mail], but as per PAN profile our e-mail ID is [e-mail]. Bderlal 8. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, as notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27-07-22 has not been issued as per Notification S.O. 1466(E) (NO. 18/2022/F.No. 370142/16/2022- TPL(Part1), Dated 29-03-2022. 9. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, as notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27-07-22 uploaded on portal is without digital signature & intimation letter dated 30-07-22 for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 uploaded on portal is without PAN & without digital signature. 10. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23 as notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27-07-22 is time-barred. 11. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order that income is chargeable to tax as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 12. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order, as procedure as per section 144B of the ACT has not been followed by Ld. AО. 13. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order, as notice u/s 148 of the Act, was issued on 21-06-21, which was not served & without closure of proceedings of notice u/s 148 dated 21-06-21 before 27-07- 22 & notice again issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27-07-22 is bad in law.” 6. We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. Sr. DR and also examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR has referred page No. 1 of the paper book filed before us containing the table for calculation of time barred notice under section 148 of the Act. It was argued that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Union of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 6 India &Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal” (Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 etc.) [(2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC)]. It was therefore argued that since neither AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the notice under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the assessment order be quashed. 7. We havealso heard the Ld. DR who was supplied with the paper book, and after going through Page No. 1 containing the table for the calculation of time-barred notice under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. Sr. DRhas submitted that the Bench may consider the submissions with respect to the applicability of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal case (supra) in its own discretion and has prayed for restoring the file to the AO for deciding the matter afresh. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. Page no. 1 of the paper book containing the details in respect of notice dated 27.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act being time barred is extracted as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 7 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 8 9. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Legal Ground No. 10, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It wassubmitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)], the reassessment proceedings initiated under the old or un-amended provisions of section 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), are without authority of law. 9.1 It was contended that for Assessment Year 2014-15, the limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions of section 148, as saved by the first proviso to section 149, expired on 31.03.2021. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued on 27.07.2022, well beyond the permissible limitation. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 9 10. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shivani Tayal in ITA number 5833/Del/2024. Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities. 11. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the challenge to the legal ground assailing the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice issued under section 148 on 27.07.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpreted the interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. 11.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 10 under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2014-15 expired on 31.03.2021. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 27.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation. 11.2 We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including in Shivani Tayal (supra) wherein notices issued after 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2014-15 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajiv Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: - 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 11 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. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 12 case, notice under Section148 of the Act was issued on 23/07/2022, which is barred by limitation. 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 undersection 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 13 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); (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; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 14 (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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 15 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 16 107. 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 17 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 18 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 19 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 20 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 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.” 12. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Shivani Tayal (supra), we are of the opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 is barred by the period specified u/s 149 of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5053/Del/2025 The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non Agri Thrift & Credit Society 21 Act. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed. 13. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 07 January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/01/2025 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT/PCIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. Sr.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "