##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH

MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR,

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.7283/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year :2013-14

R Rameshchandra & Vs. Dy. Commissioner of

Company Income Tax, Circle

BW-3101/02, Bharat 19(1), Mumbai

Diamond Bourse,

Bandra Kurla Complex

Bandra East

Mumbai – 400 051

PAN/GIR No.AAAFR1649C

(Appellant) .. (Respondent

Assessee by Ms. Vanshika Agarwal

Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri,

SR AR

Date of Hearing 02/04/2026

Date of Pronouncement 20/04/2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC,

Delhi, arising out of the assessment framed under section

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year

2

ITA No. 7283/Mum/2025

R Ramesh Chandra and Company

2013–14. At the very threshold, the assessee has raised a

preliminary and purely legal ground challenging the very

assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 on the footing

that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is ex facie

barred by limitation, having been issued beyond the

“surviving period” available to the Assessing Officer in terms

of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal & Ors. reported in

(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). Since the issue raised goes to the root

of jurisdiction and strikes at the very foundation of the

reassessment proceedings, the same is taken up for

adjudication at the outset.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of this

jurisdictional issue are that the original notice under section

148 under the erstwhile regime was issued on 07.06.2021.

Thereafter, pursuant to the change in law brought about by

the Finance Act, 2021 and in view of the directions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal, the proceedings

were treated as having been initiated under section 148A(b),

and the assessee filed its reply on 08.06.2022. Subsequently,

the impugned notice under section 148 came to be issued on

28.07.2022 under the new regime. The chronology of relevant

dates and events forming part of the reassessment

proceedings, as placed on record, is incorporated hereunder:

3

ITA No. 7283/Mum/2025

R Ramesh Chandra and Company

Sr.

Event/Action Date/Period

No.

1 Issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act 07.06.2021

under old regime

23 days

Surviving period left to issue the notice

(days between

u/s 148 of the Act i.e. under new regime

2

07.06.2021 -

as per Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in

30.06.2021)

the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)

Notice u/s 148A(b) i.e. Supply of

3 28.05.2022

material as per Hon’ble Supreme Court

direction in the case of Ashish Agarwal

Reply filed by the appellant against show

4 08.06.2022

cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act.

Time allowed to the assessee for filing

5 11.06.2022

response against notice u/s 148A(b)

The date till which a notice u/s 148 of

01.07.2022

the Act under new regime should have

6 (08.06.2022 + 23

been issued as per Hon’ble Supreme

days)

Court Order in the case of Rajeev Bansal

(supra) and order of Ld. CIT(A)

Actual date of notice issued u/s 148 of

7 28.07.2022

the Act under new regime

3. The controversy, however, hinges upon the legal

permissibility of issuance of such notice within the framework

of limitation as now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal & Ors. (2024) 469 ITR 46

4

ITA No. 7283/Mum/2025

R Ramesh Chandra and Company

(SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court, while examining the interplay

between the erstwhile reassessment provisions, the

substituted provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021,

and the relaxations granted under TOLA, has categorically

held that the Revenue is entitled only to the “surviving period”

of limitation which remained available as on 30.06.2021 and

that no fresh or extended limitation can be claimed under the

new regime.

4. It would be apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal &

Ors. (2024) 469 ITR 46 (S