Re-assessment Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Quashed: ITAT Delhi

```markdown

ITAT Delhi Quashes Re-assessment Order: Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Deemed Void

Delhi, [Current Date] - In a significant ruling for taxpayers, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has quashed a re-assessment order, holding that the notice initiating the proceedings was issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The judgment, delivered by a single-member bench of Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail, addressed an appeal by the Revenue and a cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16.

Case Overview: Battle Over Re-assessment Timeline

The case originated from a re-assessment initiated against an individual assessee based on information regarding alleged bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks. The assessee had declared Long Term Capital Gains exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act in their original return. Following information from the Directorate of Investigation, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on June 16, 2021. This notice was later deemed to be under Section 148A(b) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal .

The Revenue contended that the re-assessment notice was valid, relying on extensions provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), and subsequent Supreme Court clarifications. Conversely, the assessee challenged the re-assessment proceedings, primarily arguing that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 29, 2022, was time-barred under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

Key Arguments and Legal Principles

The core of the dispute revolved around the limitation period for issuing re-assessment notices for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee’s counsel argued that under Section 149, the limitation period had expired, and the notice issued on July 29, 2022, was invalid. They emphasized the Revenue’s concession before the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal , where it was acknowledged that notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after April 1, 2021, would be invalid due to limitation. Reference was made to decisions of the Delhi High Court and Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal which had quashed similar notices.

The Revenue, however, argued that the TOLA extended the limitation period and that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal validated the notice. They contended that the time period between the deemed show cause notice and the assessee's response should be excluded when calculating limitation, citing paragraphs from Rajeev Bansal .

Tribunal's Decision: Limitation Prevails

The ITAT meticulously examined Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, both pre and post the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, alongside the provisions of the TOLA. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's rulings and analyzed the timelines in the context of the TOLA extensions and the Rajeev Bansal judgment.

The ITAT highlighted a crucial aspect from the Rajeev Bansal judgment:

> " (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."

Despite the Revenue's attempt to contradict its earlier concession, the ITAT independently assessed the limitation period. Applying the methodology outlined in Rajeev Bansal for calculating the surviving time period, the ITAT concluded that the notice issued on July 29, 2022, was indeed beyond the permissible limit.

The judgment explicitly stated:

> "Therefore, having considered the provisions of the Act, pre as well as post the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the TOLA, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), we are of the considered view that the notice under section 148 of the Act in the present case was issued beyond the time period provided under the Act. Thus, de hors the concession of the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), which has been objected to by the learned DR in the present case, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case... the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation period specified under section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed."

Final Verdict and Implications

Ultimately, the ITAT allowed the assessee's cross-objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous. The re-assessment notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed, effectively granting relief to the assessee on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as the jurisdictional issue of limitation was decided in favor of the assessee. This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to statutory timelines in tax re-assessment proceedings and provides clarity on the application of limitation provisions in light of recent legislative changes and judicial pronouncements. ```