आदेश / O R D E R

PER SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M :

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 84 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 84 days condoned.

3. The Ld.AR, Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate drew our attention to the ground nos. 4 to 8 and argued that the reopening is barred by limitation for Assessment Year 2015-16 and prayed to take up the ground nos. 4 to 8 as preliminary issue as it goes to the root of the matter. He argued that the notice u/s 148 of the act was issued beyond the specified date which is beyond six years. He placed on record the order of this tribunal in the case of Natarajan Sangeetha in ITA No.3280/Chny/2025 for AY-2015-16 and argued that the issue of notice for AY 2015-16 u/s. 148 of the act is four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued on 07.04.2022 which is beyond the time limit as specified u/s. 149 of the act. The Ld.AR argued that the notice issued on 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation and resultantly the re assessment is thereon is liable to be quashed.

4. The Ld.DR Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT, submits that the reassessment was initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the act dated 07.04.2022 based on NMS – flagged cash deposits treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act. The argument of Ld.AR that all the notices issued u/s 148 of the act post 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid in terms of decision in the case of Rajiv Bansal is a gross misreading and does not invalidate notices wholesale, it upholds them where compliant with extended timelines under TOLA 2020 and exclusions under the third proviso to section 149(1) of the act. Further, she argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal addressed notices issued u/s 148 old regime (pre 01.04.2021) between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deeming them as show cause notices u/s 148A(b) of the new regime w.e.f. 01.04.2021. She argued vehemently that this a curative measure under article 142 to balance revenue and assessee’s interest amid Covid-19 disturbances and legislative amendments via Finance Act 2021.

5. Further, she submits that the deeming fiction revived notices valid under the old regime extended six year limit (old section 149(1)(b) r.w. proviso old section 147 expiring 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 in cases of escaped income more than one lakh. She submits it prevented still born proceedings and allowed continuation under the new regime subject to timelines. She argued vehemently that the notice dated 07.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the act falls within this transitional frame work, post Ashis Agarwal implementation via CBDT instruction no.1/2022 dated 11.05.2022. Further, she argued that contradictory to the assessee’s claim, Rajiv Bansal decision does not invalidate section 148 notices as it clarifies and upholds them for AYs like 2015-16 when issued within surviving timelines. The court examined interplay of old / new regimes, TOLA extensions from 20.03.2020 – 31.03.2021 to 30.06.2021 exclusions under the third proviso to section 149(1) of the act. She prayed to dismiss the ground nos. 3 to 10 raised by the assessee.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that this Tribunal in the case of Natarajan Sangeetha (Supra), in order to find out as to whether the notice issued u/s 148 is time barred or not, examined the relevant provisions of the act and legal position as per judicial proceedings vide para-4 of the order dated 04.02.2026. We note that the Tribunal examined the p