Ashish Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT: AY 2015-16 Reassessment Notice Issued After 1 April 2021 Time-Barred – Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal Applied; ₹1.33 Crore Penny-Stock Addition Quashed
The assessee had filed the return for AY 2015-16 declaring income of ₹9.18 lakh. The AO received information alleging that ₹1.33 crore claimed exempt under Section 10(38) represented bogus LTCG arising from sale of shares of penny-stock company PMC Fincorp Ltd. Reassessment proceedings were accordingly initiated.
In reassessment, the AO made an addition of ₹1,33,15,164 under Section 68 and a further ₹4,23,697 under Section 69C towards alleged unaccounted commission on the share transaction. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the assessment.
Before the ITAT, the assessee challenged the very validity of the reassessment, contending that the Section 148 notice was barred by limitation in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
The Tribunal noted that the case related to AY 2015-16 and the Section 148 notice had been issued on 29.06.2021. It specifically referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Bansal, where the Revenue itself had conceded that TOLA does not apply to AY 2015-16 and that all reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 1 April 2021 would have to be dropped.
Applying the Supreme Court ruling, the ITAT held that since the notice was issued on 29.06.2021, it was beyond the permissible limitation period. Consequently, the Section 148 notice itself as well as the resultant reassessment under Section 147 were quashed as time-barred and legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was allowed, resulting in the consequential deletion of the ₹1.33 crore Section 68 addition and ₹4.23 lakh Section 69C addition, without requiring adjudication of the penny-stock transaction on merits.
Key takeaway: For AY 2015-16, reassessment notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 cannot be rescued by TOLA. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal, such notices are barred by limitation, and the entire consequential reassessment—including additions relating to alleged bogus penny-stock LTCG-must fall.
Cases Discussed:
- Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Supreme Court), [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act’] arising from the assessment order passed on 29.05.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. Assessee filed the following grounds of appeal as under:
1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice u/s 148 along with assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings initiated are contrary to provisions of law including specific provisions of Section 147 to 151A of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in- law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the j notice u/s 143(2) issued in this case is invalid and non-est and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings are contrary to section 144B of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 1,33,15,164/- on the account of alleged unexplained credits u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted and C1T(A) erred in not holding so.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.1,33,15,164/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is beyond the scope of provisions of section 148/147 of the Act and C1T(A) erred in not holding so.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making addition of4,23,697/- on account of alleged unaccounted commission expense as alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 4,23,697/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is beyond the scope of provisions of section 148/147 of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 31.08.2015 for the A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income at Rs.9,18,870/-. The ld AO had information that assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.1,33,15,164/- as exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act which were bogus LTCG from the sale of shares of penny scrip M/s. PMC Fincorp Ltd. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee.
4. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO added the unaccounted commission of Rs.4,23,697/- paid by the assessee on sale of shares as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The AO also added an amount of Rs 1,33,15,164/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
5. Upon appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 02.12.2025 by observing that the assessee company received accommodation entries of Rs.1,54,07,164/- during the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us.
6. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee has challenged the validity of notice u/s 148 being barred by limitation. The ld AR stated that the AO had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act 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 on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessment year involved is AY 2015-16 and the notice u/s 148 under the old provisions, were issued on 29.06.2021 i.e. prior to the substitution of section 148 by Finance Act 2021. In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) the Revenue had conceded at paragraph 19(f) that the TOLA is not applicable for AY 2015-16 as follows:
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;
9. In the instant case, as the notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.06.2021, and as the provisions of TOLA is not applicable for AY 2015-16, issuance of notice u/s 148, in accordance with the decision of Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), cannot but be considered as beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as the resultant reassessment order u/s 147 are therefore, quashed being barred by limitation and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The ground 1 is allowed.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No. 4835/Del/2026 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2026
