ACIT Vs SBK Trade And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
Reopening Beyond 4 Years Quashed: ITAT Delhi Applies Rajeev Bansal—JCIT Approval Invalid, 148 Notice Time-Barred; TOLA 2020 does not extend deadlines for notices issued after March 2021
Assessee challenged the reopening u/s 148 on the ground that the approval was taken from the JCIT, Range-22, whereas for a notice issued after four years from the end of AY 2015-16, the law mandates approval of the Pr.CIT u/s 151(1). The notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued with JCIT approval based on the Revenue’s interpretation of TOLA, 2020.
Assessee argued that TOLA did not extend the limitation for AY 2015-16, because the six-year period under old section 149(1)(b) expired on 31.03.2022, i.e., after the TOLA window (20.03.2020–31.03.2021). Thus, the AO could not rely on TOLA to use JCIT approval, & the notice was barred by limitation. The CIT(A) rejected the plea relying on Rajeev Bansal in an incorrect manner.
Before the Tribunal, Assessee relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in UOI vs Rajeev Bansal (2024), where the Revenue itself conceded that for AY 2015-16, all reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 must be dropped because TOLA does not apply to that year. Assessee also cited several Bombay High Court judgments consistent with this interpretation.
