आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 13.02.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the AY 2015-16. The A.O received information that the assessee is having substantial financial transactions in her bank account. Consequently, the A.O issued a notice u/s. 148(b) of the Act on 20.03.2022. The A.O subsequently passed an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act reopening the assessment on 04.04.2022. The A.O called on the assessee to furnish various details and completed the assessment assessing the income at Rs.24,27,367/-. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition/disallowances made by the A.O.

3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that if the legal contentions raised with regard to the notice u/s.148 of the Act being barred by limitation (ground No.5) is considered and adjudicated in favour of the assessee then the other grounds would become academic. Accordingly, we proceed with adjudicate the ground raised with regard to the notice u/s. 148 being barred by limitation.

4. The contention of the Ld. AR at the outset is that the notice u/s. 148 issued on 04.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is beyond the time limit of six years and therefore barred by limitation as per the first proviso to the un-amended provisions of section 149(1) as has been confirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [2024] (SCC online 754). The ld AR further submitted that the coordinate bench has been consistently holding that the notice u/s.148 issued beyond six years is not valid by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly it was argued that the issue is covered by the judicial precedence.

5. The Ld DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is misquoted and that the decision did not qualify any notice on limitation only on procedure. The Ld DR further argued that if the income escaping assessment is more than Rs.50 lakhs then the time limit as per the new regime of reassessment would apply.

6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We will first look at the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) with regard to validity of notices issued for AY 2015-16 issued under the old regime –

19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:

(a) to (e)****

(f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;

******

46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows:

(i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021;

(ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the old regime.

Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the not