TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without modifying the return of income. Subsequently, an information was received that, a search & seizure operation conducted on 23.12.2019 at the premises of Joginder Pal Gupta in the case of DAG Group, he is found to be engaged in providing accommodation entries through various concerns floated for this purpose and the assessee was stated to the amongst the beneficiaries who has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 8,00,000/-; Rs. 15,00,000/-; Rs. 15,00,000/-; Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- from M/s. B.R. Buildtech P. Ltd.; M.s. RSKM Traders P. Ltd.; M/s. Bij Buildcon P. Ltd.; M/s. Anuj Buildcon P. Ltd. and M/s. MKR Trading P. Ltd. respectively totaling to Rs. 64,00,000/- during Financial Year 2014-15. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in this case on 30.06.2021. In compliance to the judgment dated 04.05.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal and in accordance with the CBDT's directions issued vide Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022, the assessee was provided with the information/material relied upon by this office which suggests that income for the relevant year has escaped assessment, and was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nity of cross examination with the entry operator. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 5. 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 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. 6. We have also 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. DR has submitted that the Bench may consider the submissions with respect to the applicability of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he first proviso to section 149, expired on 31.03.2022. 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 25.07.2022, well beyond the permissible limitation. 10. We have heard rival submissions of the parties including the challenge to 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 25.07.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain (supra) wherein notices issued after 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajiv Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: - "3. The Ld.AR argued and first took up the legal ground related to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and finally, the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice was issued under section 148 of the Act, the dates and events are tabulated as follows: - Sr.No. Particulars AY 2015-15 1 Original notice issued u/s 148 of the Act - Old Provisions 28/04/2021 2 Last date to issue notice under amended provision of the Act as per the 1st proviso to Section 149 of the Act. 31/03/2022 3 Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal 04/05/2022 4 Show cause notice was issued in accordance with the decision in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 7. This issue of noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission, which is taken on record. The Ld. DR placed reliance on paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts of the assessee's case are identical to those in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Manish Financial (supra), has also followed the said judgment. Although the Ld. DR has relied upon paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the said observation is not applicable to A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the appellate order is hereby set aside, and the addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/- made by the Ld. AO is deleted. 4.3 Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Virjinia Foods Ltd. v. ITO [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 626 (Bom)] has categorically held that notices issued for A.Y. 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 are invalid, taking note of the concession recorded by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ati v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (Delhi) [02-05-2025] 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have also perused the papers and proceedings. The Assessment Year involved in Writ Petition bearing No. 1428 of 2023 is A.Y.2015-16. The said Writ Petition [filed by the Assessee-Petitioner) was allowed on 9th May 2024 observing the following:- "1 Counsel for Petitioners state that the issue in these petitions will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., so also by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. Counsel for Respondents concurs. 2. Therefore, the notice dated 6th April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment orged is passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside." 11. Meanwhile, the Revenue in such similar matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said re-assessment proceedings ought to have been dropped in view of the concession made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in paragraph 190) of the decision rendered in Rajeev Bansal (supra). This has clearly been missed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025. 16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also brought to our attention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC) (02-04-2025), wherein at paragraph 4 and 5 it was held as under: "4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus : "19.(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 20152016, all notices issued on or after April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period ....