IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.1534/Del/2024 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, बनाम SANTOSH HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.

Central Circle-6, Vs. 1, 7^th Avenue Besant Nagar, Income Tax Department, S.O. Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

Room No.344, 3^rd Floor, PAN No.AABCS2244J ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi.

अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 12.09.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 17.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi dated 18.01.2024 for the AY 2015-16 in holding that the notice dated 31.3.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act after 1.4.2021 is invalid in the absence of its subsequent regularization through the procedure established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal’s case and therefore the reassessment proceedings are invalid and consequently the assessment order is also invalid.

2. Brief facts are that the assessee e-filed its return of income on 23.12.2015 declaring loss of Rs.48,93,564/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profits u/s 115JB at Rs.88,55,247/-. The assessment was completed under limited scrutiny through CASS vide order dated 29.09.2017 accepting the loss/income declared by the assessee. Subsequently notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued for reopening the assessment and the reassessment was completed on 25.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,28,64,629/- under normal provisions of the Act. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance of share capital expenses u/s 37, disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESI, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act.

3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the reassessment proceedings and consequent reassessment order as bad in law and void ab initio as the jurisdictional notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act which was e-signed on 31.03.2021 was issued through e-mail on 08.04.2021 and therefore such notice is not in compliance with the provisions of section 148A of the Act which came to be inserted into the statute w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The assessee also challenged the reassessment proceedings on various other legal grounds and also on the merits of the additions/disallowances made. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submissions of the assessee and the reports of the Assessing Officer, concluded that the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was digitally signed on 31.03.2021 and this notice was issued to an address which is not as per the address permissible as per Rule 127(2)(a) of Income Tax Rules and therefore the notice issued at an incorrect address cannot be considered as validly issued on 31.03.2021. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) also held that the notice sent through ITBA to an e-mail id from system on 31.03.2021 cannot be considered as a valid issuance since the e-mail id was not in accordance with permissible e-mail id mentioned in Rule 127(2)(b) of I.T. Rules. Ld. CIT(A) also concluded that notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was shared with the assessee on e-proceeding on 01.04.2021 at 02:04 pm and therefore the same was available to the assessee on or after 01.04.2021 only. The Ld. CIT(A) also concluded that notice u/s 148 was also issued to an e-mail id permissible under Rule 127(2)(b) on 08.04.2021 to which the assessee complied with and therefore notice was issued on or after 1.4.2021. The Ld. CIT(A) finally concluded that since the notice was validly issued after 01.04.2021 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou