A reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal, must be served within the calculated 'surviving time' remaining under the TOLA Act, after accounting for mandatory exclusions related to the response period and stay of the proceedings.

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The present appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee have been filed against the impugned order dated 13/11/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013-14.

In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: -

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 196l, on 21.06.2021 for AY. 2013-14 was barred by limitation, without considering the statutory extensions granted by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 ("TOLA Act") due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) as rendering the reassessment notice under section 148 invalid, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expressly preserved such notices as show-cause notices under section 148A(b) and mandated compliance with procedural safeguards?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the extended limitation period provided under amended section 149(1)(b) of the income-tax Act, 1961, which allows reassessment up to ten years in cases where escaped income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, particularly when the unaccounted credits in the assessee's accounts exceeded this threshold?

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B as invalid and without jurisdiction, despite the Assessing Officer having complied with the timelines and procedural requirements prescribed under section 148A(d)?

5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order on limitation grounds, when the assessee had misconstrued the computation of the statutory timeline under section 148A(d), thereby depriving the Revenue of its legitimate right to reassess escaped income?

6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the legal fiction created by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal allows the Revenue adequate time to complete reassessment proceedings, and whether the CIT(A)'s restrictive interpretation undermines the legislative intent behind the reassessment provisions?

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not construing the limitation provisions under the Income tax Act liberally in favour of the Revenue to prevent escape of income, especially when all procedural safeguards had been complied with?

8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) decision conflicts with settled judicial precedents emphasizing substantial compliance over strict adherence to limitation periods in reassessment proceedings?”

While the assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross-objection: -

“1. CROSS-OBJECTION 1: NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION

1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (*the Act) in the absence of any income chargeable to tax represented in the form of "Asset" which has escaped assessment as required under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

1.2. The Id. AO failed to appreciate that as per section 149(l)(b) of the Act, notice u/s 148 of the Act can be issued beyond 3 years only if income chargeable to tax is represented in the form of an asset.

1.3. The Cross Objector prays that the notice u/s. 148 issued without considering