A reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for an Assessment Year ending on or before April 1, 2021, is barred by limitation if issued beyond the six-year period specified in the un-amended Act, as the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) cannot bypass the restrictions of the first proviso.

ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 25/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 11/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order ex parte, without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair play enshrined under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had submitted details explanation along with Form 35 therefore the order passed by the learned CIT Appeals is arbitrary, ex-facie.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment Initiated by notice u/s 148 dated 27.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, though the record itself shows that both the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice were issued on 27.04.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Therefore, all consequential proceedings are is invalid and non-est in the eyes of law.

4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the proceedings recorded are mechanistic and non-speaking at the 148A stage and that issuance of s.148A(d) and s.148 on the same day, without meaningful consideration of objections/material, violates the scheme of law and principles of natural justice.

5. The learned CIT(A) dismissed core jurisdictional grounds without returning reasoned findings on each point for determination, contrary to s.250(6). The order summarily accepts reassessment validity but does not adjudicate the legal objections raised.

6. The reassessment initiated by notice u/s 148 dated 27.04.2022 is time-barred for AY 2015-16 in terms of the amended s.149. Absent credible material establishing, at the stage of s.148A, that the alleged escapement exceeded ₹50,00,000 and was represented in the form of a specified asset, the extended 10-year window under s.149(1)(b) could not be invoked; consequently the notice is vold. (SC in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal on the "surviving-period" doctrine and saving only where statutory conditions are met; also HCs insisting on credible material for the 150-lakh threshold.) The AO's own order merely cites "RMS flagged information" and does not demonstrate the statutory pre-conditions.

7. The learned CIT(A) proceeded ex parte and concluded "no submission filed", instead of deciding the grounds on merits and/or calling for a remand, thereby denying an effective appellate remedy. The order itself records four notices and then decides on available record without dealing with grounds 3-7 on facts/law.

8. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of 158,00,000 as "unexplained money" u/s 69A purely on AIR/RMS inputs, without independent verification, confrontation of underlying Information, or appreciation that the assessee had asserted fixed deposits of only 29,00,000 with a co-operative bank.

9.. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding sanction and "reasons to believe" which are borrowed from generic flags and lack independent application of mind.

10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”

Succinctly stated, the AO based on information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy (RMS) formulated by the CBDT, which revealed that the assessee during the subject year had made time deposits of Rs.58,00,000/-, but not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. Thereafter, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 27/04/2022 was passed by