##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI.

BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.2765/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

AND ITA No.2809/Del/2025

(Assessment Year: 2014-15)

SUSHMA GARG, vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1)

PH-01, B-BLOCK, C.R. BUILDING, THE VILLAS, AKASHNI MARG, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI

DLF PHASE-2, GURGAON, HARYANA

(PAN : AHJPG9118M)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ayush Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date of Order : 30.03.2026

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. The Assessee has filed appeals against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 10.3.2025 & 12.3.2025 for the Assessment Years

2016-17 & 2014-15 respectively.

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order, by

2

dealing with the appeal No. 2765/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17), being lead case.

3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has filed an application for admission of following additional grounds and submitted that the said additional grounds goes to the root of the matter and have a bearing on the outcome of appeal and in view of the NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 97 Taxman 358 (SC), the same may be

admitted.

(i) Reassessment Proceedings Time Barred and void ab initio That the AO erred in law and on facts in reopening the assessment for AY 2016-17 u/s. 148/148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though such proceedings were barred by limitation. The impugned reassessment notice and order

are, therefore, invalid and Void Ab Initio.

(ii) Notice issued u/s. 148 without prior approval of the Specified Authority.

The reassessment proceedings are void ab initio as the notices u/s. 148 was issued without the prior approval of the specified authority as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Since the notice was issued on 29.7.2022, after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17), it required the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner, but was wrongly approved by an authority (Principal Commissioner

of Income Tax) not competent to do so.

4. After perusing the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal, we are of the

considered view that the aforesaid additional grounds goes to the root of the matter, hence, need to be admitted. Accordingly, we admit the same

3

by applying the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs.

CIT (1998) 97 Taxman 358 (SC).

5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us key

dates as under and submitted that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and, therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the assessee is barred by limitation in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) SSC Online SC 2693 wherein the Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all 148 notice which is on or after 1^st April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. He placed on record relevant decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and he brought to

our notice relevant findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :-

“(e) The Finance Act, 2021 ((2021) 432 ITR (Stat) 52) substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 3 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) is read wi