Himanshu Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The appeal arose from the order dated 12.11.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A)-NFAC for AY 2015-16. The assessee challenged, among other matters, the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated through a notice under Section 148. The assessee’s principal jurisdictional contention was that, in view of the Revenue’s submission recorded in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, all notices under Section 148 issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 would have to be dropped. ([TaxGuru][1])
The assessee had suffered additions on account of cash deposits and other amounts treated under Sections 69A and 69, besides an addition towards allegedly undisclosed commission income. The assessee had not specifically challenged the assumption of jurisdiction before the CIT(A), although the present appeal challenged both the merits and the jurisdictional foundation of the reassessment. ([TaxGuru][2])
Before the Tribunal, the learned AR relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajeev Bansal and specifically drew attention to paragraph 19(f) of that judgment. In the reproduced submission, the Revenue had expressly conceded that, for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped because they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The TaxGuru publication concerning Rajeev Bansal records the Supreme Court’s examination of the interaction between TOLA and the reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. ([TaxGuru][1])
