O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal 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 2015-16.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

“1. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.04.2022 is barred by limitation.

2. The notice u/s 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional requirement of section 147 to 151A of the Act.

3. The notice u/s 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the same has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who has no jurisdiction.

4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 18.03.2024 is bad in law. Therefore, should be set aside.

5. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,49,999/- made by the Ld.AO, in respect of capital gains by not allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Act.

6. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings and upholding the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, without appreciating that the same was against the principle of Natural Justice and is bad in law.

7. The Ld. AO has erred in the levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.

8. The Ld. AO has erred in the initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) and u/s 271F of the Act.”

3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the grounds, inter alia, challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Since this is a jurisdictional issue, which goes to the root of the matter, we are considering the same at the outset. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act in the present case is beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 149 read with first proviso to the said section, and thus, the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act is void ab initio.

4. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record are: The assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration did not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. On the basis of specific information flagged as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, it was noticed that the assessee had entered into a transaction of the sale of immovable property during the year under consideration. Accordingly, after conducting necessary enquiries as stipulated under section 148A(a) of the Act with prior approval of the specified authority, a show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 25.03.2022, granting opportunity to the assessee. Vide this notice, the assessee was also provided the details/documents for issuing the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish his reply with cogent and corroborative documentary evidence, on or before 22.04.2022. In response, the assessee submitted that the immovable property, which was sold during the year, was jointly owned with his mother, and therefore, the income that can be assessed in the hands of the assessee is only 50% of the sale consideration, which was less than the limitation prescribed for reopening the assessment after the expiry of three years. After considering the submissions of the assessee, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 28.04.2022, declaring that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. On the very same date, i.e., 28.04.2022, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), after taking into consideration, the details filed by the assessee arrived at the conclusion t