TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 was passed on 29.03.2023, and the order of the learned CIT(A), which is under challenge before us, was passed on 05.12.2024. The assessee had earlier challenged the latter order before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 450/Kol/2025. The Kolkata Bench concluded the hearing on 03.02.2026, which, as stated before us, was the eleventh hearing. By order dated 12.02.2026, the coordinate Bench recorded that both the assessment order and the appellate order had been passed by authorities at Mumbai. It accordingly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating its merits and granted liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal at Mumbai. The assessee has thereafter filed the present appeal. The learned Departmental Representative raised no objection to condonation of the delay. 3. We have considered the circumstances and the order of the coordinate Bench. The assessee had pursued its challenge to the order dated 05.12.2024 before the Kolkata Bench. That appeal remained before the coordinate Bench until its disposal on 12.02.2026, when the assessee was expressly granted liberty to approach the appropriate Bench at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon findings in appellate orders concerning other assessee's. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 05.12.2024. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following grounds before us: 1. That the Ld. A.O. erred in issuing notice under section 148 beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149 and as settled in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 / 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238 469 ITR 46 (SC). 2. Ground 1. The order u/s. 250 dated 05/12/2024 passed in respect to order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29/03/2023 is bad in law, as no proper and effective opportunity was provided by the Ld CIT(A) to the assessee to represent its case and hence there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice rendering the order invalid and bad in law. 3. The order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 29/03/2023 is bad in law, as the notice u/s 148 dated 27/07/2022 was issued without a system generated DIN for such notice. 4. The order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law, as the reopening was made on issues already verified during scrutiny assessment and an opinion after such verification was formed on the transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., "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." 10. The learned AR further submitted that the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 had to be issued within the period available under section 149, subject to the statutory exclusions and the minimum period of seven days discussed in that decision. The learned AR placed the following computation before us: Particular Date or period stated by the learned AR End of the original six-year period for assessment year 2014-15 31.03.2021 Extended date relied upon under TOLA 30.06.2021 Original notice under section 148, treated as a deemed notice under section 148A(b) 28.06.2021 Time stated to have remained on issuance of the original notice Three days, subject to the minimum seven-day period claimed Assessee's reply referred to in the computation 08.06.2022 Last permissible date claimed for issuance of the fresh notice 15.06.2022 Date of the fresh notice under section 148 27.07.2022 11. On this basis, the learned AR submitted that the notice dated 27.07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Those paragraphs explain the fourth proviso to section 149(1): where less than seven days remain after the prescribed exclusions, the Assessing Officer receives a minimum of seven days to pass the order under section 148A(d) and issue the consequential notice. The Court makes clear that completion of the procedure remains subject to the limitation under section 149; upon its expiry, "the AO would cease to have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice." We find that this reasoning accords with the binding rule in Rajeev Bansal. 16. Applying that rule, the notice issued on 28.06.2021 left, on the calculation advanced by the learned AR, three days up to 30.06.2021. Since that is less than seven days, we have also given the Revenue the benefit of the minimum seven-day period under the fourth proviso. The learned AR calculates 15.06.2022 as the last permissible date by taking the assessee's reply of 08.06.2022 as the point from which that seven-day period runs. The present conclusion does not depend on accepting that precise terminal date. Even on the more favourable assumption that the relevant material was first available to the assessee only on 08.06.2022, and allowing a full fur....