IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Gunomal Santumal Rochlani, Income Tax Officer, 48, Roshan Apartment, Netaji Road, Ward- 2(1)), Ullhasnagar, Vs. Kalyan-Dombivali-421301 Thane - 421004 (Appellant) : (Respondent)

PAN NO. AHPPR 0832B Appellant by : Shri Mohit S. Makhija, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR (Appellant) (Respondent)

Date of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 30.04.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY)

2015-16.

2. In Ground No.1, the assessee has raised a crucial legal and jurisdictional issue challenging the validity of the assessment order dated 26.05.2023 passed under Section (u/s.) 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’).

3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It is the say of the assessee that the impugned assessment order is barred by limitation as the Assessing Officer (AO) had no power to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act after expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015- 16. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: -

1. Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC).

2. Income Tax Officer vs. Warasgaon Lake View Hotels Ltd., ITA No.

2788/Mum/2025 dated 20.06.2025.

3. SKF India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2518/Mum/2024 dated 16.05.2025.

4. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that under the new regime of Section 147 of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, the AO has power to reopen the assessment before expiry of 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, he submitted, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is within the period of limitation, hence, the assessment order cannot be held as invalid.

5. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Before proceeding to decide the specific issue arising for consideration, it is necessary to bear in mind the following chronological events: -

1. 29.09.2015-return of income filed for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. 29.07.2022-assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

3. 29.07.2022-notice u/s. 148 issued.

6. Keeping in perspective, the aforesaid chronological events, the issue that needs to be decided is whether, the impugned assessment order passed is barred by limitation. It is the case of the assessee that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act ought to have been issued prior to expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year as assessee’s case is covered under the old regime of Section 147 of the Act hence, six years limitation would apply. Whereas, it is the case of the Department that the AO has power to reopen the assessment before expiry of ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the new regime of Section 147 of the Act. 7. In our view, the issue is no more res integra in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). While dealing with identical issue as is under consideration now before us, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“18. The present batch of appeals gives rise to the following issues:

a. Whether TOLA and notifications issued under it will also apply to reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021; and b. Whether the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime between July and September 2022 are valid.

C. Submissions

19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:

a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-