Consolidated Finvest And Holdings Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: The Delhi ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and held that the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 was barred by limitation. The dispute arose from the sale of a property situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai for Rs. 2,16,40,000/-, against a stamp-duty value of Rs. 2,85,80,744/-. The assessee offered the resulting gain under the head capital gains and disputed adoption of the stamp valuation as fair market value. In support, it furnished an independent Government-approved valuer’s report valuing the property at Rs. 2,13,28,000/-. The Assessing Officer nevertheless made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on 11.11.2019 and ultimately made an addition of Rs. 69,40,744/- under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act by adopting the differential stamp-duty valuation, even though the DVO’s report had not been received when the assessment was completed.
The assessee contended that the reference concerning valuation of a capital asset for Section 50C purposes was required to be made under the specific mechanism contained in Section 50C(2), rather than the general valuation provision in Section 142A. It was argued that a Section 50C(2) reference did not provide the Assessing Officer any corresponding extension of the assessment limitation under Section 153. Therefore, the assessment should have been completed by 31.12.2019. The assessee further submitted that the DVO had neither furnished the report within six months from the end of the month of reference nor provided the assessee an opportunity contemplated under Section 142A(4). Reliance was placed on N. Meenakshi Vs ACIT reported in 326 ITR 229 and Sumit Khurana Vs. ACIT reported in 14 taxmann.com 44.
The assessee also relied upon Section 155(15), contending that the assessment could be completed within the normal limitation period and suitably amended after receipt of the valuation report. TaxGuru’s discussion of Section 50C and DVO valuation similarly records the position discussed in N. Meenakshi concerning completion of assessment and subsequent rectification where the DVO report is awaited.
The CIT(A), however, treated the reference as one made under Section 142A and held that the Assessing Officer was entitled to the extended limitation available under Section 153, together with the relaxation granted during COVID. On that basis, the CIT(A) concluded that the last date for completing the assessment was 30.09.2021 and upheld the assessment dated 28.09.2021 as being within time. The CIT(A) also confirmed the Section 50C addition.
The Tribunal disagreed. It held that Section 142A is a general or residuary valuation provision, whereas Section 50C(2) is a special and specific provision governing determination of the fair value of a capital asset for computation of capital gains under Section 48. Applying the principle generalia specialibus non derogant, the Tribunal held that the specific provision had to prevail over the general provision.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C(2) constituted the applicable mechanism where the assessee disputed the stamp-duty value of the property. Consequently, the Revenue could not obtain an extended limitation period by characterising the reference as one under Section 142A.
The Tribunal observed that Section 153(1) did not provide an extension of the assessment period merely because a reference was made to the DVO under Section 50C(2). The Assessing Officer therefore ought to have completed the assessment on or before 31.12.2019 and, where permissible, made a suitable amendment after receipt of the DVO’s report under the mechanism referred to in Section 155(15).
The Tribunal further noted that even by the date on which the assessment was eventually completed on 28.09.2021, the DVO had not submitted the valuation report. In contrast, the assessee had already furnished an independent valuation report from an approved Government valuer, valuing the property at Rs. 2,13,28,000/- against the assessee’s actual sale consideration of Rs. 2,16,40,000/-. The Assessing Officer had not considered that valuation report.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not invoke the extended limitation by relying upon a Section 142A reference when, according to the Tribunal, the reference was required to be construed under the special provision in Section 50C(2). The assessment dated 28.09.2021 was therefore held to be barred by limitation and the addition of Rs. 69,40,744/- was deleted. The assessee’s appeal was allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeal in ITA No.9203/Del/2015 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 18.11.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.09.2021 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1) Ground1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is invalid and without jurisdiction.
2) Ground1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment order is beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation, since the same was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act on the basis of an invalid reference to DVO under section 142A as opposed to the reference, if any, ought to be made under section 50C read with section 55A of the Act.
3) Ground1.2 Without Prejudice, that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in treating the extended period of limitation under section 153 read with Explanation 1(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as applicable, even though the valuation report of the DVO was not received within the stipulated time.
4) Ground2. Without Prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.69,40,744/- to income of the assessee, being difference between the circle rate of properties sold during the year and actual consideration received therefrom, on notional basis by applying the deeming fiction contained in section 50C of the Act.
5) Ground2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making the aforesaid addition under section 50C, failing to appreciate that the same could not have been made, since – (i) the assessee had disputed circle rate to be the FMV of the impugned property by bringing an approved valuer report on record, which remained to be refuted by the AO, and (ii) no report of the DVO was brought on record both at the time of assessment as well as before passing of the impugned order by the CIT(A).
6) Ground3. Further, without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not reversing the action of the AO in making the impugned addition to total income under the normal provision as opposed to Capital Gains under section 45 and correspondingly applying the rate of tax applicable to the income under the head of Capital Gains.
7) Ground4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at OR before the time of hearing.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee company on 12.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 9,24,88,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing loans and making investments as a non banking financial company. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 23.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 9,24,88,434/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 17,26,238/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee sold a property situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai during the year under consideration and gain from sale of property was duly offered to tax under the head “income from capital gains”. The assessee sold the property for sale consideration of Rs. 2,16,40,000/- and stamp duty was paid on the circle rate of Rs. 2,85,80,744/-. The assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority is higher than the fair market value. It was submitted that the assessee had sold the property at fair market value. The assessee in support of its contentions placed on record an independent valuation report obtained from a Govt valuer, who valued the property at Rs. 2,13,28,000/-. The ld AO in the course of assessment proceedings made reference to ld Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on 11.11.2019. The fact of such reference made to ld DVO was never intimated to the assessee by the ld AO in the assessment proceedings. The ld DVO did not submit the valuation report before the completion of assessment. Hence, the ld AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 making an addition of Rs. 69,40,744/- u/s 50C of the Act by adding the differential sale consideration adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority.
4. The assessee pleaded that the assessment completed u/s 28.09.2021 is barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the fact of ld AO making reference to ld DVO was made known to the assessee for the first time only through the assessment order wherein, it was mentioned that case was referred to Valuation Cell by the ld AO vide letter dated 11.11.2019. Further, it was pleaded before the ld CIT(A) that the ld AO should have referred the case to ld DVO as per provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act, being a specific provision involved for adjudicating the disputed issue and should have passed the assessment order on or before 31.12.2019 as per the outer time limit prescribed in Section 153 of the Act. The ld AO had passed the assessment order on 28.09.2021 by claiming extension of time u/s 153 Explanation (1)(v) of the Act which refers to reference made to Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the Act. It was pleaded that when a specific provision of making reference to Valuation Officer is provided in Section 50C(2) of the Act itself, then there is no requirement of making reference to Valuation Officer under general provisions u/s 142A of the Act. It was submitted that special provision would always override general provision. Further, it was submitted that even if the reference is sought to be made u/s 142A of the Act still admittedly the assessee was not given any opportunity of being heard before the Valuation Officer which is a prerequisite and mandatory conditions as per Section 142A(4) of the Act. Further, it was submitted that even if the reference made by the ld AO is to be treated as a reference made u/s 142A of the Act, then the Valuation Officer ought to have sent the report to AO as well as the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the month in which reference is made. Accordingly, in the instant case, as per the assessment order, the reference was made to DVO on 11.11.2019. Hence, the last date of submission of the valuation was 31.05.2020. Admittedly, no such report was submitted by the ld DVO to the assessee. It was also submitted that even if the reference is to be construed as reference made u/s 142A of the Act, once the reference is made to the Valuation Officer, then the ld AO is duty bound to wait for the report from the Valuation Officer before finalizing the assessment. In the instant case, assessment has been framed on 28.09.2021 without waiting for the valuation report from the ld DVO which itself would make the order the ld AO as invalid. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of N. Meenakshi Vs ACIT reported in 326 ITR 229. In the instant case, no such valuation report was either submitted to the ld AO or to the assessee. Under these circumstances, the ld AO should have relied on the independent valuation report submitted by the assessee which has been obtained from an approved Government valuer who had valued the property for Rs. 2,13,28,000 against the returned sale consideration by the assessee of Rs. 2,16,40,000. Further, having resorted not to wait for the report of the valuation officer, the ld AO could not have got the extended time limit to frame the assessment on 28.09.2021 instead of 31.12.2019, which would make his assessment barred by limitation. The assessee also relied on the provisions of Section 155(15) of the Act which says that assessment should be completed within time without waiting for the valuation report and as and when valuation report is received, the AO would be given the power to amend the assessment order based on the modifications suggested by the Valuation Officer on the value of consideration. This goes to prove that ld AO ought to have framed the assessment on or before 31.12.2019 as per the time limit provided u/s 153(1) of the Act. Further, it was submitted that for making a reference in terms of section 50C (2) of the Act, no extension of time has been granted u/s 153(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that reference to Valuation Cell u/s 142A of the Act could be made for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the investment covered u/s 69, 69A and 69B of the Act and not for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s 48 of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the coordinate bench decision of the Delhi tribunal in the case of Sumit Khurana Vs. ACIT reported in 14 taxmann.com 44.
5. The ld CIT(A) categorically held that the reference in the instant case was made u/s 142A of the Act by the ld AO to the ld DVO. The ld CIT(A) held that assessment framed on 28.09.2021 was well within the time in view of the extended provision of 203 days as per Explanation 1(b) to Section 153 of the Act and thereafter followed by relaxation given due to COVID. The ld CIT(A) held that accordingly, the last date for completion of the assessment would be 30.09.2021 and hence the assessment framed on 28.09.2021 was within time. On merits, the ld CIT(A) upheld the addition made u/s 50C of the Act. The ld CIT(A) also held that Section 50C(2) of the Act specify reference to Valuation Officer by stating that AO may refer the valuation of capital asset to the Valuation Officer. The ld CIT(A) held that such reference was not self-contained but operates through the Valuation Machinery of Section 142A of the Act. The ld CIT(A) held that after amendment in Section 142A of the Act by Finance Act 2014, the scope of Section 142A of the Act is wide enough to encompass references made for the purpose of Section 50C(2) of the Act.
6. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had categorically given a finding that reference in the instant case has been made by the ld AO to ld DVO only u/s 142A of the Act. Section 142A is a residuary provision and a general provision for valuation of any asset for determining the fair market value, whereas Section 50C(2) of the Act is a special and specific provision for determination of fair value of the capital asset for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Act. It is trite law that general provisions have to pave way for the specific provision in view of overriding nature of the latter. In this regard, the popular legal maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant would apply, which means that when there is conflict between the general and special provision, the latter shall prevail. Section 50C of the Act being a specific provision, is a self contained code in itself which clearly mandates making reference to ld DVO if the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities is objected by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act does not extend any time limit when a reference is made to ld DVO in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act, being is a special provision. Hence, the ld AO ought to have completed the assessment within the time limit prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act i.e. on or before 31.12.2019 and make suitable amendment to the assessment order after the receipt of ld DVO’s report as provided in Section 155(15) of the Act. This was not done by the ld AO in the instant case. Hence, the assessment framed on 28.09.2021 would be barred by limitation as resort to extended time limit cannot be used by the revenue in the instant case, as the reference could not have been made u/s 142A of the Act itself in the instant case, rather the reference to be construed to have made only in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act, being a special provision. In any event, till the date of completion of assessment proceedings on 28.09.2021, the ld DVO had not submitted the valuation report. On the other hand, the assessee had furnished an independent valuation report obtained from the approved Government valuer. In that scenario, the ld AO ought to have considered the valuation report submitted by the assessee, which is also not done by him in the instant case.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations, both on law as well as on facts, as on facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment framed u/s 28.09.2021 is barred by limitation and hence the addition made thereon is hereby deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2026
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeal in ITA No.9203/Del/2015 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 18.11.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.09.2021 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1) Ground1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is invalid and without jurisdiction.
2) Ground1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment order is beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation, since the same was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act on the basis of an invalid reference to DVO under section 142A as opposed to the reference, if any, ought to be made under section 50C read with section 55A of the Act.
3) Ground1.2 Without Prejudice, that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in treating the extended period of limitation under section 153 read with Explanation 1(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as applicable, even though the valuation report of the DVO was not received within the stipulated time.
4) Ground2. Without Prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.69,40,744/- to income of the assessee, being difference between the circle rate of properties sold during the year and actual consideration received therefrom, on notional basis by applying the deeming fiction contained in section 50C of the Act.
5) Ground2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making the aforesaid addition under section 50C, failing to appreciate that the same could not have been made, since – (i) the assessee had disputed circle rate to be the FMV of the impugned property by bringing an approved valuer report on record, which remained to be refuted by the AO, and (ii) no report of the DVO was brought on record both at the time of assessment as well as before passing of the impugned order by the CIT(A).
6) Ground3. Further, without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not reversing the action of the AO in making the impugned addition to total income under the normal provision as opposed to Capital Gains under section 45 and correspondingly applying the rate of tax applicable to the income under the head of Capital Gains.
7) Ground4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at OR before the time of hearing.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee company on 12.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 9,24,88,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing loans and making investments as a non banking financial company. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 23.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 9,24,88,434/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 17,26,238/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee sold a property situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai during the year under consideration and gain from sale of property was duly offered to tax under the head “income from capital gains”. The assessee sold the property for sale consideration of Rs. 2,16,40,000/- and stamp duty was paid on the circle rate of Rs. 2,85,80,744/-. The assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority is higher than the fair market value. It was submitted that the assessee had sold the property at fair market value. The assessee in support of its contentions placed on record an independent valuation report obtained from a Govt valuer, who valued the property at Rs. 2,13,28,000/-. The ld AO in the course of assessment proceedings made reference to ld Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on 11.11.2019. The fact of such reference made to ld DVO was never intimated to the assessee by the ld AO in the assessment proceedings. The ld DVO did not submit the valuation report before the completion of assessment. Hence, the ld AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 making an addition of Rs. 69,40,744/- u/s 50C of the Act by adding the differential sale consideration adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority.
4. The assessee pleaded that the assessment completed u/s 28.09.2021 is barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the fact of ld AO making reference to ld DVO was made known to the assessee for the first time only through the assessment order wherein, it was mentioned that case was referred to Valuation Cell by the ld AO vide letter dated 11.11.2019. Further, it was pleaded before the ld CIT(A) that the ld AO should have referred the case to ld DVO as per provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act, being a specific provision involved for adjudicating the disputed issue and should have passed the assessment order on or before 31.12.2019 as per the outer time limit prescribed in Section 153 of the Act. The ld AO had passed the assessment order on 28.09.2021 by claiming extension of time u/s 153 Explanation (1)(v) of the Act which refers to reference made to Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the Act. It was pleaded that when a specific provision of making reference to Valuation Officer is provided in Section 50C(2) of the Act itself, then there is no requirement of making reference to Valuation Officer under general provisions u/s 142A of the Act. It was submitted that special provision would always override general provision. Further, it was submitted that even if the reference is sought to be made u/s 142A of the Act still admittedly the assessee was not given any opportunity of being heard before the Valuation Officer which is a prerequisite and mandatory conditions as per Section 142A(4) of the Act. Further, it was submitted that even if the reference made by the ld AO is to be treated as a reference made u/s 142A of the Act, then the Valuation Officer ought to have sent the report to AO as well as the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the month in which reference is made. Accordingly, in the instant case, as per the assessment order, the reference was made to DVO on 11.11.2019. Hence, the last date of submission of the valuation was 31.05.2020. Admittedly, no such report was submitted by the ld DVO to the assessee. It was also submitted that even if the reference is to be construed as reference made u/s 142A of the Act, once the reference is made to the Valuation Officer, then the ld AO is duty bound to wait for the report from the Valuation Officer before finalizing the assessment. In the instant case, assessment has been framed on 28.09.2021 without waiting for the valuation report from the ld DVO which itself would make the order the ld AO as invalid. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of N. Meenakshi Vs ACIT reported in 326 ITR 229. In the instant case, no such valuation report was either submitted to the ld AO or to the assessee. Under these circumstances, the ld AO should have relied on the independent valuation report submitted by the assessee which has been obtained from an approved Government valuer who had valued the property for Rs. 2,13,28,000 against the returned sale consideration by the assessee of Rs. 2,16,40,000. Further, having resorted not to wait for the report of the valuation officer, the ld AO could not have got the extended time limit to frame the assessment on 28.09.2021 instead of 31.12.2019, which would make his assessment barred by limitation. The assessee also relied on the provisions of Section 155(15) of the Act which says that assessment should be completed within time without waiting for the valuation report and as and when valuation report is received, the AO would be given the power to amend the assessment order based on the modifications suggested by the Valuation Officer on the value of consideration. This goes to prove that ld AO ought to have framed the assessment on or before 31.12.2019 as per the time limit provided u/s 153(1) of the Act. Further, it was submitted that for making a reference in terms of section 50C (2) of the Act, no extension of time has been granted u/s 153(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that reference to Valuation Cell u/s 142A of the Act could be made for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the investment covered u/s 69, 69A and 69B of the Act and not for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s 48 of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the coordinate bench decision of the Delhi tribunal in the case of Sumit Khurana Vs. ACIT reported in 14 taxmann.com 44.
5. The ld CIT(A) categorically held that the reference in the instant case was made u/s 142A of the Act by the ld AO to the ld DVO. The ld CIT(A) held that assessment framed on 28.09.2021 was well within the time in view of the extended provision of 203 days as per Explanation 1(b) to Section 153 of the Act and thereafter followed by relaxation given due to COVID. The ld CIT(A) held that accordingly, the last date for completion of the assessment would be 30.09.2021 and hence the assessment framed on 28.09.2021 was within time. On merits, the ld CIT(A) upheld the addition made u/s 50C of the Act. The ld CIT(A) also held that Section 50C(2) of the Act specify reference to Valuation Officer by stating that AO may refer the valuation of capital asset to the Valuation Officer. The ld CIT(A) held that such reference was not self-contained but operates through the Valuation Machinery of Section 142A of the Act. The ld CIT(A) held that after amendment in Section 142A of the Act by Finance Act 2014, the scope of Section 142A of the Act is wide enough to encompass references made for the purpose of Section 50C(2) of the Act.
6. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had categorically given a finding that reference in the instant case has been made by the ld AO to ld DVO only u/s 142A of the Act. Section 142A is a residuary provision and a general provision for valuation of any asset for determining the fair market value, whereas Section 50C(2) of the Act is a special and specific provision for determination of fair value of the capital asset for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Act. It is trite law that general provisions have to pave way for the specific provision in view of overriding nature of the latter. In this regard, the popular legal maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant would apply, which means that when there is conflict between the general and special provision, the latter shall prevail. Section 50C of the Act being a specific provision, is a self contained code in itself which clearly mandates making reference to ld DVO if the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities is objected by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act does not extend any time limit when a reference is made to ld DVO in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act, being is a special provision. Hence, the ld AO ought to have completed the assessment within the time limit prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act i.e. on or before 31.12.2019 and make suitable amendment to the assessment order after the receipt of ld DVO’s report as provided in Section 155(15) of the Act. This was not done by the ld AO in the instant case. Hence, the assessment framed on 28.09.2021 would be barred by limitation as resort to extended time limit cannot be used by the revenue in the instant case, as the reference could not have been made u/s 142A of the Act itself in the instant case, rather the reference to be construed to have made only in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act, being a special provision. In any event, till the date of completion of assessment proceedings on 28.09.2021, the ld DVO had not submitted the valuation report. On the other hand, the assessee had furnished an independent valuation report obtained from the approved Government valuer. In that scenario, the ld AO ought to have considered the valuation report submitted by the assessee, which is also not done by him in the instant case.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations, both on law as well as on facts, as on facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment framed u/s 28.09.2021 is barred by limitation and hence the addition made thereon is hereby deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2026
