TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant Assessment Year is 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2013-14, the return of income was filed on 26.03.2024 declaring total income of Rs. 14,19,860/-. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021 as per the old regime within the extended time limit in view of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA). The reason for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act was that assessee along with seven co-owners had sold an immovable property during the relevant assessment year, which suggested escapement of income. Later on, as per CBDT's instruction No. 1/2022 of F.No.279 /Misc. /M-51/2022-ITJ dated 11th May 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.09.2024, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, vide additional submissions dated 18.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 questioned the jurisdictional issues relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Rajiv Bansal vs Union of India reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). 5. The Ld.AR submitted that notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 is time barred and liable to be set aside as the said notice is beyond "surviving period" as specified in para 114(g) and 114(h) in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, supra. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act as per the old regime read with TOLA 2022 was issued on 30.06.2021. The AO considering the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued under Old Regime between the period of 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021, shall be deemed to be a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the New Regime and that the AO shall provide information and materials relied upon by revenue within 30 days of the judgment, so that assessee can reply within two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the revenue assumed jurisdiction for all such cases, based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and went ahead with procedures culminating in assessment. 9. These assessments triggered a second round of litigation, primarily on the fact that, if the re-assessment notices issued u/s 148 of the New Regime were valid or not. In the Second round, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these procedures has to happen within the surviving period (Para-111) 4th. Only notices issued within the surviving period calculated from the date of receipt of response by AO is valid. The notices issued beyond surviving period is time barred and liable to be set-aside (Para-113 and 114(g) & 114(h)) 12. Applying the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the instant case and adopting a conservative computation, notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act will time barred by 35 days as detailed below (The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, supra does not specify the application of fourth proviso of section 149(1), which governs time limit for notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Still in the belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) (Para-65 to 73) v. Judgment of Delhi High Court in KANWALJEET KAUR & ORS Vs ACIT Delhi[W.P.(C) 3908/2023] (Para-24 & 28) vi. Order of ITAT Raipur in M/s. Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Vs The ITO [ITA No.307/RPR/2024] (Para-23 to 25) vii. Order of ITAT Raipur in DCIT VS Shri Vinay Agrawal [ITA No: 29 & 30/RPR/2025] (Para-19 & 20) viii. Order of ITAT Mumbai in ACIT Vs Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani [ITA No. 3553/MUM/2024] (Para-9 & 10) ix. Order of ITAT Mumbai in ITO Vs Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain [ITA No. 3553/MUM/2024] (Para-22 & 23) x. Order of ITAT Mumbai in Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs DCIT [ITA No.6140/MUM/2024] (Para-30 & 31) xi. Order of ITAT Mumbai, in DCIT Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd in ITA No-5743 & 5745 of 2024, reported in 173 taxm....