ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment order was passed on 26.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act by the AO for A.Y. 2015-16 by assessing the total income of Rs.2,30,66,976/-. For making such assessment, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 27.07.2022/28.07.2022 by the JAO. The assessee submitted that the above notice u/s 148 was barred by limitation under the amended provisions of section 149(1) of the Act, effective from 01.04.2021. Learned CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 06.01.2026 set aside the assessment order.

4. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before us with the following grounds:

1. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in setting aside the reassessment order instead of quashing the same, despite having categorically held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid and contrary to law.

2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in exercising powers under section 251 of the Act to set aside an assessment which is void for lack of jurisdiction, whereas settled law mandates that such an assessment deserves to be annulled and not remanded.

3. Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 are void ab initio as notice u/s 148 is barred by limitation; therefore entire assessment deserves to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no valid notice under section 148 of the Act was served upon the appellant within the prescribed limitation and in accordance with law, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings null and void, leaving no scope for fresh assessment.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in granting liberty to the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment, despite the fact that the limitation prescribed under the Act for initiating proceedings had already expired, and therefore no proceedings were legally permissible.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment L order suffered from jurisdictional infirmity, yet failed to grant complete relief by annulling the assessment, thereby causing grave prejudice to the appellant.

6. That the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), in so far as it sets aside the assessment instead of quashing the same, is arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable in law and contrary to the settled judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts

7. The notice under section 148 was issued in a manner contrary to the guidelines provided in the Notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandates that notices under section 148 should be issued in a faceless manner. Since the notice was not issued through the faceless system, it is invalid and does not comply with the prescribed legal procedure, further rendering the reassessment proceedings void.

8. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.”

5. The solitary issue is that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in setting aside the reassessment order instead of quashing the same on account of notice u/s 148 being barred by limitation.

6. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee challenged the validity of notice u/s 148 and stated that originally the notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2021 which was treated as show cause notice u/s 148A(b) by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court. In Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal: (2023) 1 SCC 617. It was urged that the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022/28.07.2022 which is time barred in the light of the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC).

7. Per contra the ld DR relied on the orders of the AO/CIT(A)/NFAC.

8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material. We find that the assessment year involved is AY 2015-16 for which the original notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2021 and the subsequent notice u/s