TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... set aside. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 after the limitation date of 01-04-2021, as conceded by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and hence the same is in violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is time-barred and liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 148 dated 02-04-2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is in direct contravention to the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, thereby rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings along with order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 19-03-2024 to be invalid. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 20-06-2023 by the Ld. Assessing Officer is invalid, being in direct contravention of CBDT Notification F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23-06-2017, and all subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to such invalid notice are null and void in law, as consistently held by various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it could ask for the transfer of such amount in its favour. The AO, based on the aforesaid facts, concluded that the assessee, i.e., APHB had, though enjoyed the subject income till date, but on initiation of the income tax assessment proceedings, had come forth with an explanation that the said income belonged to a third party. The AO, based on his aforesaid observation, concluded that the income of Rs. 38,04,02,787/- (supra) was the income of the assessee chargeable to tax under the head "Profit/Gains from Business/Profession". The AO, based on his aforesaid observations, made an addition of Rs. 38,04,02,787/- to the returned income of the assessee and determined its income at the same amount. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who though upheld the addition of Rs. 38,04,02,787/- made by the A.O in the hands of the assessee, but at the same time directed that the credit of the Tax Deducted at Source (for short, "TDS"), if any, appearing against the PAN of the assessee-company be allowed to it. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." qualify the substantive amended section 149 of the Act and do not relate to the un-amended section 149 of the Act, which in turn is taken care of exclusively by the "first proviso" to section 149(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contentions submitted that the time spent from the issuance of notice under section 148A(b) of the Act upto the passing of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of "fifth proviso" and "sixth proviso" cannot be excluded for reckoning the limitation period for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 02.04.2022 for the AY 2015-16 had been issued beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Act as was available in the statute before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, which expired as on 31/03/2022 (six years from the end of the assessment year, i.e., AY 2015-16), therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Writ Petition No.25121 of 2024, dated 17/11/2025, wherein based on exhaustive deliberations, it was observed, as under:- "6. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, notice under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. As per the first proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act, the impugned notice is beyond the period of six years from the Assessment Year 2017-18. The reopening of assessment proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the same issue, it cannot be made. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the notice dated 20.01.2022 issued for rectification of mistake and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act passed on 22.04.2024. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal; High Court of Delhi in Sheetal international (P) Ltd v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Central- 2z; High Court of Karnataka a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 22.04.2024 relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act brought into effect from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of amended Section 149 and the first, fifth and sixth provisos are extracted in the footnote". 10. This, we say so for the following reasons: In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the position of law stands clear as regards the operation of amended Section 149(1) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 49 and 53 thereof are extracted hereunder: "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 (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (10) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have clapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs." 11. The first proviso) to the amended Section 149 of the Act prescribes that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, if a notice under Section148 of the Act could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Section. It prescribes the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per the show cause notice under clause (b) of Section 148 of the Act or the period during which the proceeding under Section 148A of the Act is stayed shall be excluded. The sixth proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act also deals with exclusion of the period referred to in the fifth proviso i.e., the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act if it does not exceed seven days. In that event, 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, both the fifth and sixth provisos in the first place do not amount to clarification of the first proviso. These two provisos qualify the substantive amended Section 149 of the Act and do not relate to the unamended Section 149 of the Act for which the first proviso takes care of. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the time spent from the issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act up to the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n attempt to argue that fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would save the period of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. We are afraid we do not agree with him. Same argument was raised in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and was rejected. The Court held, with respect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act ie, three years or ten years, as the case may be. The Court also held that fifth and sixth provisos extend limitation for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, first proviso is an exception to the period of limitation and provides for a restriction on the notices under Section 148 of the Act being issued for assessment years up to 2021-22 (in this case, it is Assessment Year 2017-18) beyond a certain date. Therefore, the way the section would operate, is to fira decide whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Vet is within the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(2)....