IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.4863/Del/2024 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. CHARU GOEL, Circle 43(1), 6/22, East Punjabi Bagh, 1704, 17^th Floor, E 2 Block, New Delhi.

Civic Centre, New Delhi. PAN No.AALPG3062F अपीलाथ(cid:18) Appellant (cid:20)(cid:21)यथ(cid:18)/Respondent &

CO No.16/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.4863/Del/2024)

िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2014-15 CHARU GOEL, बनाम DCIT, 6/22, East Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Circle 43(1), New Delhi. 1704, 17^th Floor, E 2 Block, PAN No.AALPG3062F Civic Centre, New Delhi.

अपीलाथ(cid:18) Appellant (cid:20)(cid:21)यथ(cid:18)/Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 08.12.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 08.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal arises from the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), vide order dated 28.06.2024. The impugned order is passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case the Ld. AO vide order dated 15.05.2023 passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act through which two amounts have been added as under:

a) Rs.69,39,894/- u/s 68 of the Act;

b) Rs.69,398/- u/s 69C of the Act.

1.1 Aggrieved with this order the assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could succeed on the basis of the following findings:

“5. Observation and Decision:

In ground Nos. 1 and 2, the Appellant has contested the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act, 1961 dated 27/03/2022 for the A.Y 2014-15 of the AO of making an addition of Rs.69,39,894/- u/s 68 and Rs. 69,398/- u/s 69C by holding that the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation and is therefore illegal and bad in law. Both these grounds are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant. It is observed that the Appellant had filed original Return of Income on 30/07/2014 declaring total income of Rs.13,92,220/-. Initial notice u/s 148 was issued on 24/05/2022. Subsequently notice u/s 148 was issued on 22/07/2022 and assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B was completed on 15-05-2023 making an addition of Rs.69,39,894/- u/s 68 and Rs.69,398/- u/s 69C. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat has in the case of Sumit Jagdishchandra Agarwal vs. the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara in SCA No. 4860, 4861, 4862, 4863, 4865, 4886 and 4677 of 2023 dated 20.03.2023 in agreement with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of Kennara Industries Pvt. Ltd vs ITO and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Rajeev Bansal vs. Union of India held that all original notices u/s 148 of the Act referable to the old regime and issued between 01-04-2021 to 30-6-2022 Would stand' beyond" the prescribed permissible timeline of six years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, all such notices when they would relate to A.Y. 2013-14 or A.Y. 2014-15 would be barred as per the provisions of the Act as applicable in the old regime prior to 01-04-2021. Furthermore, these notices cannot be issued as per the amended Provisions of the Act. In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts of Gujrat and Allahabad, the notice u/s 148 issued on 24/05/2022 and 27/07/2022 is illegal and the subsequent assessment made is bad in law and hereby quashed. These grounds are allowed.

Since the appeal has been adjudicated on the legal issue and allowed, all other issues on the merits of the additions, in the impugned proceedings are rendered academic and infructuous.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.”

1.2 Aggrieved with this order the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following ground:

“1) the judgment of Hon’ble High courts relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) has been set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R