vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 417/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanskriti Build-Dev Private Limited cuke The ITO, R-19, Raj Aangan, Haldi Chati Marg, Vs. Ward-6(2), Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Sector-11, Jaipur.

jaipur.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCS4565J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Kumar, C.A.

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :08/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

The assessee was in appeal before Learned CIT(A), while challenging assessment order dated 29.05.2023, relating to the assessment year 2014-15. Said appeal has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.01.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2. Arguments heard. File perused.

3. The only argument advanced before this Appellate Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant is that notice dated 27.07.2022, issued u/s 148 of the Act, by the Assessing Officer, to the assessee was barred by limitation, as the same was required to be issued within 8 days, when calculated as per decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 Taxman 70 (SC), but the same came to be issued beyond the prescribed period.

The contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant is that as a result the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A) confirming the order issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148A(d) of the Act, deserves to be set aside.

4. It may be mentioned here that in the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has specifically submitted that except the above said legal ground, no argument is to be advanced or pressed.

5. Learned DR for the department has submitted that she stands by the reasons recorded by CIT(A) on the basis of decisions relied therein.

6. A perusal of record would reveal that even before Learned CIT(A), only the above said contention was raised i.e. the notice u/s 148 of the Act having been issued on 23.06.2021, in view of decision in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra), there was only a period of 8 days with the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 148 A(d), i.e. upto 30.06.2021, but the same having not been issued within the prescribed period, notice was invalid and void-ab-initio.

7. While dealing with the above said contention raised on behalf of the assessee, Learned CIT(A) observed as under:-

“I have gone through all the submissions and documents furnished by the appellant. As the appellant has raised objections against re-assessment proceedings, the concerned provisions are reproduced below for reference:

The Finance Act, 2021 has also substituted Section 148 of the Act, with effect from 01/04/2021. The provisions u/s 148 of the Act reads as under:

"Section 148 Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if required, under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139:

Provided that no notice under this section sh