UNITED INFRA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1659/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves United Infra Minerals Private Limited, which appealed against the reassessment orders for the assessment year 2016-2017. The reassessments were based on notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were later deemed invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal examined whether the reassessment notices and subsequent orders were legally tenable, considering the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were improperly initiated and thus quashed the orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847836 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Hyderabad
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Anindita Sengupta vs. ACIT, Satish Chand Jain vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAYAL GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK CHOPRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained expenditure; Tax effect; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 69C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.Nos.1659 & 1660/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 United Infra Minerals Private Limited, HYDERABAD. PIN – 500 081. Telangana. PAN AABCU3147N vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by : Sri Deepak Chopra, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by : MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 12.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate Orders both dated 04.09.2025 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, arising from two assessment orders dated 31.03.2022 and 31.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act [in short \"the Act\"], 1961 and 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively, for the assessment year 2016-2017. ITA.No.1659/Hyd./2025 - A.Y. 2016-2017: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The orders of lower authorities are bad in law and liable to be quashed for: a) non-consideration of material on record and submissions of the appellant b) want of application of principles of natural justice. (Tax Effect of above ground 22,94,920) Without prejudice: 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessing officer being bad in law and void-ab- inito was required to be quashed instead of being confirmed. (Tax Effect of above ground 22,94,920/-). 3.1. The condition precedent for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act being absent, mandatory procedures under law not having been followed and the requisite approvals from the specified authority not having been taken, reopening of assessment in the appellant's case is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order as passed being also bad in law is required to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 3.2. The reassessment proceedings are also bad in law for being barred by limitation. The proceedings being void ab initio, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.3. In any case, the assessing officer having not complied with legal provisions/procedure for reopening/reassessment, the consequential order becomes bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in a. Not appreciating the facts of the appellant's case and the applicable legal provisions; b. Not following the law laid down by the Apex court of India;. c. confirming the impugned reassessment order instead of quashing the same. (Tax Effect of above ground 22.94.920 4. In any case, the assessment order passed in a haste and all proceedings conducted at the fag end of the time barring period without providing the appellant a. copy of the material/sworn statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer while passing the order, b. opportunity of rebutting the allegations of the assessing officer and presenting the appellant's case. is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play which makes the order totally bad in law and liable to be cancelled. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not annulling the assessment and instead confirming the same. (Tax Effect of above ground: 22,94,920) Without prejudice 5.1. The Assessing officer has erred in taxing a sum of Rs.79,55,760/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 addition. The addition being wrong on facts of the case and in law applicable is to be deleted. On proper appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the provisions of Sec 69C are not at all applicable to the appellant's case. 5.2. The Assessing Officer has also erred in taxing the additions u/s. 115BBE of the Act. The provisions of Section 115BBE are not at all applicable to the appellant and the levy and calculation of tax U/s. 115BBE is to be quashed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the above and not at all addressing the same in the appellate order. (Tax Effect of above ground: 22,94.920/ 6. Without prejudice, the income as computed by the learned assessing officer and as confirmed by the learned CTT(A) is excessive. (Tax effect of above ground : 22,94,920/-). 7. In the light of above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the impugned assessment order be quashed or at least addition made be deleted. (Tax Effect of above ground: 22,94,920).” ITA.No.1660/Hyd./2025 – A.Y. 2016-2017: 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The orders of lower authorities are bad in law and liable to be quashed for: a) non-consideration of material on record and submissions of the appellant b) want of application of principles of natural justice. (Tax Effect of above ground 89,35,411/-) Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 Without prejudice: 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessing officer being bad in law and void- ab-inito was required to be quashed instead of being confirmed. (Tax Effect of above ground 89,35,411/-). 3.1. The condition precedent for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act being absent, mandatory procedures under law not having been followed and the requisite approvals from the specified authority not having been taken, reopening of assessment in the appellant's case is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order as passed being also bad in law is required to be quashed. 3.2. The reassessment proceedings are also bad in law for being barred by limitation. The proceedings being void ab initio, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.3. In any case, the assessing officer having not complied with legal provisions/procedure for reopening/reassessment, the consequential order becomes bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in a. Not appreciating the facts of the appellant's case and the applicable legal provisions; b. Not following the law laid down by the Apex court of India;. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 c. Confirming the impugned reassessment order instead of quashing the same. (Tax Effect of above ground 89,35,411/-) 4. In any case, the assessment order passed in a haste and without providing the appellant a. copy of the material/sworn statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer while passing the order, b. opportunity of rebutting the allegations of the assessing officer and presenting the appellant's case. is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play which makes the order totally bad in law and liable to be cancelled. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not annulling the assessment and instead confirming the same. (Tax Effect of above ground: 89,35,411/-) Without prejudice 5.1. The lower authorities have also erred in holding the following as incomes in the hands of the appellant: Unexplained cash expenditure u/s.69C 79,55,760 Unexplained interest expenditure u/s.69C 1,02,85,000 Unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A 12,34,120 5.2. On proper appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the provisions of Sec 69C and 69A are not at all applicable to the appellant's case. The addition being wrong on facts of the case and in law applicable is to be deleted. 5.3 The Assessing Officer has also erred in taxing the additions u/s. 115BBE of the Act. The provisions of Section 115BBE are not at all applicable to the appellant and the levy and Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 calculation of tax U/s. 115BBE is to be quashed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the above and not at all addressing the same in the appellate order. (Tax Effect of above ground: 89,35,411/-) 6. Without prejudice, the income as computed by the learned assessing officer and as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is excessive. (Tax Effect of above ground: 89,35,411/-). 7. In the light of above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the impugned assessment order be quashed or at least addition made be deleted. (Tax Effect of above ground: 89,35,411/-).” 4. The assessee is a private limited company and filed its original return of income for the year under consideration on 13.10.2016 admitting total income at loss of Rs.5,28,832/-. There was a survey operation u/sec.133A of the Act in the case of the assessee on 29.06.2017. During the survey, email from one Sri M Vamsidhar, Director of the assessee company sent to the accountant of the assessee company was found and seized revealing the details of loans of assessee company and cash expenditure towards its repayment. Based on the said impounded material, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 23.06.2021. In response, the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 assessee filed its return of income declaring the same income as in the original return of income dated 13.10.2016. Re- assessment order u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 was passed on 31.03.2022 whereby the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.79,55,760/- towards unexplained expenditure u/sec.69C of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has issued show cause notice in pursuance to the Judgment dated 04.05.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC). The relevant facts recorded by the Assessing Officer in Para no.4 of the second assessment order dated 31.05.2023 are as under: “4. Later, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 held that all the notices issued u/s 148 between 01.04.2021 to 30/06/2021 are to be treated as show-cause notices issued u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 and in consonance with the Instruction No. 1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the CBDT, the earlier notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.06.2021 issued for AY 2016-17 is deemed to be the show-cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the case of the assessee has been picked up for fresh proceedings u/s 147. Subsequently, a letter was issued to Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 the assessee with prior approval from competent authority vide DIN.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043297438(1) dated 02.06.2022 wherein the assessee was asked to show-cause as to why a notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income to the tune of Rs.79,55,760/- is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in assessee's case for the AY 2016-17 and requested to submit its reply on or before 17.06.2022. The information on which the Assessing Officer has relied upon for issue of notice u/s. 147 was also provided to the assessee.” 4.1. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the second re-assessment order dated 31.05.2023 determining the total income of Rs.1,94,74,880/-. The assessee challenged both the assessment orders before the learned CIT(A) but could not succeed. 5. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act on 23.06.2021 without following the procedure u/sec.148A of the Act is invalid and therefore, liable to be quashed and consequently, the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2022 is also liable to be quashed as invalid. He has further submitted that even Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 otherwise the Assessing Officer himself has accepted the invalidity of the first notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) and then, issued the second notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has referred to the relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para no.7 has observed that the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature and therefore, the Hon’ble High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new provision shall be made available in respect of the proceedings relating to the past assessment year, provided notice u/sec.148 of the Act has been issued on or after 01.04.2021. This position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and therefore, the re- assessment order passed on 31.03.2022 in pursuance to the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.06.2021 is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed as the same is Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 passed without following the procedure as laid down u/sec.148A of the Act as well as in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra). 6. As regards the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and consequently, the re-assessment order passed on 31.05.2023 are also invalid and liable to be quashed as the Assessing Officer cannot have the benefit of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) after completing the re-assessment based on the original notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.06.2021. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Anindita Sengupta vs. ACIT [2024] 467 ITR 624 (Del.) as well as in the case of Satish Chand Jain vs. ACIT [2025] 474 ITR 230 (Del.). The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has dealt with an identical facts and situation wherein after completing the re-assessment proceedings the Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 Assessing Officer again reopened the assessment in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra). He has thus submitted that the deeming fiction created by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) by treating the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act on or after 01.04.2021 as notice issued u/sec.148A(b) cannot be applied in the cases of completed assessments based on such notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act after 01.04.2021. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer are not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that even if first notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.06.2021 is treated as invalid due to not following the procedure laid down u/sec.148A of the Act, the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer by following the procedure u/sec.148A will be considered as fresh proceedings for Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 reopening of the assessment and not in continuation of the earlier notice and therefore, if the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment by following the procedure u/sec.148A of the Act is within the limitation as provided u/sec.149 of the Act, then, the same cannot be held as invalid. The learned DR has submitted that the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee are not applicable in the facts of the present case when the limitation even prior to the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2021 was still available with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment as on 01.04.2021 and therefore, as per the amended provisions of sec.148A of the Act the limitation was still available with the Assessing Officer when the second notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that as per the proviso to sec.149(1) of the Act, only in cases where the notice u/sec.148 of the Act as per the un-amended provisions of reopening could not have been issued due to the limitation the benefit of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) could have save such notice issued by the Assessing Officer if those notices are issued from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The first notice was issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act on 23.06.2021 which reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 8.1. Thus, it is clear that the notice dated 23.06.2021 was issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act without following the procedure as laid down u/sec.148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Courts on this point that after amendment by Finance Act, 2021, the substituted provisions of reopening of the assessments would be applicable as observed In para-7 of the said Judgment as under: “7. Thus, the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature and substituted with a specific aim and object to protect the rights and interest of the assessee as well as and the same being in public interest, the respective High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new provisions shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided section 148 notice has been issued on or after 1st April, 2021. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts in holding so.” 8.2. Even otherwise, now it is the settled proposition of law that the reopening of the assessment after 01.04.2021 has to be in accordance with the provisions of sec.148A of the Act. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the first notice Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.06.2021 was issued after obtaining the approval/sanction of Addl. CIT where, as per sec.151 of the Act the Competent Authority to accord the sanction for reopening of the assessment is the Pr. Commissioner or CIT where the notice issued on 23.06.2021 is come in relaxation of limitation under TOLA. There is no dispute that in the case of the assessee notice issued on 23.06.2021 is after lapse of more than 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration but due to the benefit of TOLA it is considered as within 03 years. Hence, the notice issued without valid sanction u/sec.151 of the Act is not valid and consequently vitiates the re-assessment order passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 31.03.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) has also considered this issue in Para nos.75 to 81 as under: “75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 authorities specified under section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 comply with the pre conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022; c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts \"shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b).\" Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under section 151 for Section 148A(b). It is well established that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. 81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to \"pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.\" Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime \"after Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 following the procedure as required under section 148-A.\" Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.” 8.3. Accordingly, notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.06.2021 and consequential re-assessment order passed on 31.03.2022 are not valid and liable to be quashed. We Order accordingly. 9. As regards the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act in pursuance to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) is concerned, it is relevant to reproduce the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148A(b) of the Act dated 02.06.2022 as under: Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 9.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer has issued the second notice after completion of the re-assessment based on the same reasons and earlier notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.06.2021. We find merit and substance in the contention of the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee challenging the validity of the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment after completion of the re-assessment proceedings and as the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act comes to an end when the re-assessment is completed based on such notice and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the said notice could not continue thereafter. The Assessing Officer, therefore, cannot deem the earlier notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act as Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 notice issued u/sec.148A(b) of the Act after completion of the re-assessment order. In other words, a single notice cannot initiate two proceedings of re-assessments and therefore, the same cannot be extended or deemed to be issued u/sec.148A(b) of the Act once the said notice was acted upon and culminated into re-assessment order. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anindita Sengupta vs. ACIT (supra) has considered an identical issue in Para nos.22 to 25 as under: “22. As is manifest from a reading of the aforesaid passages forming part of the decision in Ashish Agarwal, the Supreme Court was essentially concerned with the imperatives of striking a just balance between the right of the respondents to undertake and conclude a reassessment that may have been initiated while at the same time according due protection to the interest of the assessees. The Supreme Court held that although the High Courts were correct in taking the view that after the amendments in the Act, coming to be enforced with effect from 01 April 2021, notices could have been issued only in terms of the substituted provisions, the Department appeared to have proceeded under the mistaken yet bona fide belief that those amendments were yet to be enforced. It was in the aforesaid background that it found that the ends of justice would warrant the notices issued with reference to the erstwhile provisions being saved and being read as referable to Section 148A(b). It was to subserve the aforesaid primary objective that Ashish Agarwal Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 proceeded to hold that the impugned Section 148 notices would be deemed to have been issued under section 148A and treated to be show cause notices referable to clause (b) thereof. 23. As we read the penultimate directions which came to be framed, the procedure laid out in Ashish Agarwal clearly stood confined to matters where although notices may have been issued, proceedings were yet to have attained finality. This clearly flows from the impugned notices being ordained to be treated as show cause notices under Section 148A(b) and the concomitant liberty being accorded to AOs' to proceed further in accordance with Section 148A(d). As we read that decision, we find ourselves unable to construe those directions as either warranting or mandating a reopening of proceedings which had come to be rendered a quietus in the meanwhile. The judgment was primarily concerned with the validity of various notices which had been promulgated and proceedings drawn in accordance with the statutory procedure which stood in place prior to 01 April 2021. It also becomes pertinent to note that the decision rendered by our Court in Man Mohan Kohli perhaps constituted the solitary exception in the sense of having left a window open to the respondents to draw proceedings afresh. A majority of the High Courts', however, do not appear to have made such a provision or provide the Revenue with a right of recourse. The Supreme Court was thus faced with a peculiar and an unprecedented situation where the Revenue was rendered remediless to assess escaped income even though material may have merited such an action being pursued solely on account of a misinterpretation of the correct legal position. It was these factors which clearly appear to have weighed upon the Supreme Court to mould and sculpt a procedure which would strike a just balance between competing interests. Printed from counselvise.com 25 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 24. In order to carve out an equitable solution which would redress the deadlock, the Supreme Court invoked its powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution and ordained that all such notices would be treated as being under Section 148A(b) and for proceedings to be taken forward in accordance with law thereafter. The direction so framed thus enabled the assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 and take advantage of the beneficial measures embodied in Section 148 A. The assessee thus derived a right to assail the initiation of reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional grounds by preferring objections which the AO was statutorily obliged to take into consideration before issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand, and notwithstanding its folly of having erroneously proceeded under the erstwhile regime, was enabled to continue proceedings in accordance with the amended procedure as introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 and thus avoid the specter of a fait accompli which it faced on account of some of the High Court decisions. This is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the judgments rendered by some of the High Courts' had left the Revenue remediless and resulting in \"no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147.\" 25. However, we are of the firm opinion that Ashish Agarwal neither intended nor mandated concluded assessments being reopened. The respondent clearly appears to have erred in proceedings along lines contrary to the above as would be evident from the reasons which follow. Firstly, Ashish Agarwal was principally concerned with judgments rendered by various High Courts' striking down Section 148 notices holding that the respondents had erred in proceeding on the basis of the Printed from counselvise.com 26 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 unamended family of provisions relating to reassessment. They had essentially held that it was the procedure constructed in terms of the amendments introduced by Finance Act, 2021 which would apply. None of those judgements were primarily concerned with concluded assessments. It is this indubitable position which constrained the Supreme Court to frame directions requiring those notices to be treated as being under Section 148A(b) and for the AO proceeding thereafter to frame an order as contemplated by Section 148A(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court significantly observed that the High Courts' instead of quashing the impugned notices should have framed directions for those notices being construed and deemed to have been issued under Section 148A. Ashish Agarwal proceeded further to observe that the Revenue should have been \"permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions......\". Our view of the judgement being confined to proceedings at the stage of notice is further fortified from the Supreme Court providing in para 8 of the report that \"The respective impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show cause notices in terms of Section 1484(b).\" As would be manifest from the aforesaid extract, the emphasis clearly was on the notices which formed the subject matter of challenge before various High Courts' and the aim of the Supreme Court being to salvage the process of reassessment. This is further evident from the Supreme Court observing that the AO would thereafter proceed to pass orders referable to Section 148A(d). We consequently find ourselves unable to construe Ashish Agarwal as an edict which required completed assessments to be invalidated and reopened. Ashish Agarwal cannot possibly be read as mandating the hands of the clock being rewound and Printed from counselvise.com 27 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 reversing final decisions which may have come to be rendered in the interregnum.” 9.2. Thus, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) has permitted the Revenue to proceed further with the re-assessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions and therefore, the said Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is confined to the proceedings at the stage of notice and is not applicable in the cases where the re-assessment is already completed and proceedings were not pending. This view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Satish Chand Jain vs. ACIT (supra) in Para nos.10 and 11 as under: “10. Notice under Section 02.06.2022 under Section 148-A(b) proceeds on the premise that the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) requires all notices issued under Section 148 of the Act between the period commencing from 01.04.2021 and ending on 30.06.2021 to be treated as SCNs referrable to Section 148-A(b) of the Act. Dealing with an identical question of the right of the respondents to reopen the concluded assessment, based on perceived reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was the question which directly fell for our consideration in Anindita Sengupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Printed from counselvise.com 28 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 Income Tax, Circle 61 (1) New Delhi & Ors. 2024 SCC On Line Del. 2296, the Court observed as follows:- “21. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the Supreme Court proceeded to frame the following operative directions: 28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgments and orders [Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 799] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WT No.524 of 2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under: 28.1. The impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject-matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assesses information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter. 28.2. The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under Section 148- A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Printed from counselvise.com 29 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 28.3. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the assessing officers concerned to hold any enquiry, if required. 28.4. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted). 28.5. All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under Section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the assessees concerned and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted). 29. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by the different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 1- 4-2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also Printed from counselvise.com 30 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 observe that the present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various the High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 1-4-2021 are under challenge. “22. As is manifest from a reading of the aforesaid passages forming part of the decision in Ashish Agarwal, the Supreme Court was essentially concerned with the imperatives of striking a just balance between the right of the respondents to undertake and conclude a reassessment that may have been initiated while at the same time according due protection to the interest of the assessees. The Supreme Court held that although the High Courts were correct in taking the view that after the amendments in the Act, coming to be enforced with effect from 01 April 2021, notices could have been issued only in terms of the substituted provisions, the Department appeared to have proceeded under the mistaken yet bona fide belief that those amendments were yet to be enforced. It was in the aforesaid background that it found that the ends of justice would warrant the notices issued with reference to the erstwhile provisions being saved and being read as referable to Section 148A(b). It was to subserve the aforesaid primary objective that Ashish Agarwal proceeded to hold that the impugned Section 148 notices would be deemed to have been issued under section 148A and treated to be show cause notices referable to clause (b) thereof. 23. As we read the penultimate directions which came to be framed, the procedure laid out in Ashish Agarwal clearly stood confined to matters where although notices may have been issued, proceedings were yet to have attained finality. This clearly flows from the impugned notices being ordained to be treated as show cause notices under Section 148A(b) Printed from counselvise.com 31 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 and the concomitant liberty being accorded to AOs' to proceed further in accordance with Section 148A(d). As we read that decision, we find ourselves unable to construe those directions as either warranting or mandating a reopening of proceedings which had come to be rendered a quietus in the meanwhile. The judgment was primarily concerned with the validity of various notices which had been promulgated and proceedings drawn in accordance with the statutory procedure which stood in place prior to 01 April 2021. It also becomes pertinent to note that the decision rendered by our Court in Man Mohan Kohli perhaps constituted the solitary exception in the sense of having left a window open to the respondents to draw proceedings afresh. A majority of the High Courts', however, do not appear to have made such a provision or provide the Revenue with a right of recourse. The Supreme Court was thus faced with a peculiar and an unprecedented situation where the Revenue was rendered remediless to assess escaped income even though material may have merited such an action being pursued solely on account of a misinterpretation of the correct legal position. It was these factors which clearly appear to have weighed upon the Supreme Court to mould and sculpt a procedure which would strike a just balance between competing interests. 24. In order to carve out an equitable solution which would redress the deadlock, the Supreme Court invoked its powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution and ordained that all such notices would be treated as being under Section 148A(b) and for proceedings to be taken forward in accordance with law thereafter. The direction so framed thus enabled the assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 and take advantage of the beneficial measures embodied in Section 148 A. The assessee thus derived a right to assail the initiation of Printed from counselvise.com 32 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional grounds by preferring objections which the AO was statutorily obliged to take into consideration before issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand, and notwithstanding its folly of having erroneously proceeded under the erstwhile regime, was enabled to continue proceedings in accordance with the amended procedure as introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 and thus avoid the specter of a fait accompli which it faced on account of some of the High Court decisions. This is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the judgments rendered by some of the High Courts' had left the Revenue remediless and resulting in \"no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147.\" 25. However, we are of the firm opinion that Ashish Agarwal neither intended nor mandated concluded assessments being reopened. The respondent clearly appears to have erred in proceedings along lines contrary to the above as would be evident from the reasons which follow. Firstly, Ashish Agarwal was principally concerned with judgments rendered by various High Courts' striking down Section 148 notices holding that the respondents had erred in proceeding on the basis of the unamended family of provisions relating to reassessment. They had essentially held that it was the procedure constructed in terms of the amendments introduced by Finance Act, 2021 which would apply. None of those judgements were primarily concerned with concluded assessments. It is this indubitable position which constrained the Supreme Court to frame directions requiring those notices to be treated as being under Section 148A(b) and for the AO proceeding thereafter to frame an order as contemplated by Section 148A(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court significantly observed that the High Courts' instead of Printed from counselvise.com 33 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 quashing the impugned notices should have framed directions for those notices being construed and deemed to have been issued under Section 148A. Ashish Agarwal proceeded further to observe that the Revenue should have been \"permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions......\". Our view of the judgement being confined to proceedings at the stage of notice is further fortified from the Supreme Court providing in para 8 of the report that \"The respective impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show cause notices in terms of Section 1484(b).\" As would be manifest from the aforesaid extract, the emphasis clearly was on the notices which formed the subject matter of challenge before various High Courts' and the aim of the Supreme Court being to salvage the process of reassessment. This is further evident from the Supreme Court observing that the AO would thereafter proceed to pass orders referable to Section 148A(d). We consequently find ourselves unable to construe Ashish Agarwal as an edict which required completed assessments to be invalidated and reopened. Ashish Agarwal cannot possibly be read as mandating the hands of the clock being rewound and reversing final decisions which may have come to be rendered in the interregnum. 26. Regard must also be had to the undisputed fact that the petitioner never questioned the validity of the original notices on grounds which were urged before the various High Courts and where assessees had questioned the invocation of the unamended provisions. The petitioner chose to contest the reassessment proceedings on merits. It is also admitted before us that the petitioner was also not a party to the Man Mohan Kohli batch of matters. There Printed from counselvise.com 34 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 was therefore no justification for the respondent to have issued notices afresh seeking to reopen proceedings which had been rendered a closure prior to the judgment rendered in Ashish Agarwal. At the cost of being repetitive we deem it appropriate to observe that the Ashish Agarwal judgment neither spoke of completed assessments nor did it embody any direction that could be legitimately or justifiably construed as mandating completed assessments being reopened and more so where the assessee had raised no objection to the initiation of proceedings.” 11. Undisputedly and as admitted, the assessment proceedings in this case were already concluded on 30.03.2022 and reassessment action was re-initiated on the same set of reasons vide SCN dated 02.06.2022 under Section 148-A(b) leading to passing of an order Section 148-A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 19.07.2022. In view of the position of law as enunciated in the case of Anindita Sengupta (supra), we find that there was no justification for the respondents to issue notices afresh seeking to reopen the proceedings which had been concluded prior to the judgment passed in Ashish Agarwal. The judgment passed in Ashish Agarwal does not mandate the completed assessment being reopened. We are therefore unable to sustain the impugned action for reassessment.” 9.3. No contrary Judgment has been brought to our notice by the Revenue and therefore, by following the Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Anindita Sengupta vs. ACIT (supra) as well as in the case of Printed from counselvise.com 35 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 Satish Chand Jain vs. ACIT (supra),we hold that the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 is not valid in law and consequently, vitiates the second re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.05.2023. Since we have quashed the initiation of re-assessment proceedings as well as consequential assessment orders therefore, the other grounds raised by the assessee become infructuous and the same are neither argued nor taken up for adjudication. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 25th March, 2026 VBP Printed from counselvise.com 36 ITA.Nos.1659 and 1660/Hyd./2025 Copy to: 1. United Infra Minerals Private Limited, Cellar Floor, Building Owners Office, P.No.56 & 57, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur B.O., Shaikpet, HYDERABAD. PIN – 500 081. Telangana. 2. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. 3. The CIT(A)-12, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. 4. The Pr. CIT-(Central), Hyderabad. 5. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard file. BY ORDER Printed from counselvise.com VADREVU PRASADA RAO Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.03.30 10:51:00 +05'30' "