" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.486/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Motiwala Auto Private Limited, Opposite Govt. Milk Scheme, Jalna Road, Aurangabad-431005 PAN : AAECM7122Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar Date of hearing : 30-10-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”/“NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2015-16. As per the information available with the Department, it was noticed that during the relevant AY 2015-16, the assessee was in receipt of the following income: (i) commission/brokerage of Rs.35,34,709/-, (ii) contract receipt of Rs. 15,50,547/-, (iii) rent of Rs. 6,67,694/- (iv) interest on debentures of Rs.13,630/-, (iv) professional/technical fee of Rs. 3,52,696/; (v) interest from Hyundai Motor India of Rs.82,500/-, (vi) sale/purchase of Motor Vehicle of Rs.6,95,134/-, (vii) turnover from business of Rs.1,29,49,068/- and (viii) cash deposits of Rs.1,08,09,180/-, aggregating to Rs. 3,06,55,158/. Therefore based on the above information, case of the assessee was reopened for reassessment under section 147 of the Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) following the procedure mandated in law. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 was issued on 25.07.2022, followed by issue of notice(s) under section 142(1) on 26.01.2023 and 18.03.2023 and show cause notice on 08.05.2023. The assessee failed to file any valid income tax return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and remained non-complaint to all the notices and show cause issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”). As the assesses failed to furnish any corroborative submission, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide his order dated 14.05.2023 at the total income of Rs.73,71,067/- on account of above additions. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the above additions made by the Ld. AO and also raised an additional ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice issued under section 148 is barred by limitation. After considering the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee and in the unique facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC opined that the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act appears to be not appropriate / just and the impugned issues needs further examination and investigation by the Ld. AO. He therefore set aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO for making denovo assessment under the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act by observing as under: “5. DECISION :I have carefully considered all the material available on records, the facts of the case, grounds of appeal by the appellant. The decision on the appeal preferred by the appellant is discussed in subsequent paras. 5.1 It is apparent from the assessment order that no fewer than six additions, aggregating to a sum of 73,71,067/-, have been made to the total income of the appellant. These additions appear to have been primarily derived from information accessible via the Income Tax Department's database. To ascertain the nature of the transactions in question, numerous notices were issued to the appellant, calling upon them to provide requisite explanations. However, the appellant, for reasons unknown, failed to comply with these notices or furnish the necessary clarifications. Consequently, the assessments were effectuated on the basis of gross receipts alone, without the allowance of benefits, deductions, or exemptions as might have been applicable under the various provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.1.1 The appellant, in Form 35, Paragraph 11.1, has declared their intention to submit the requisite documentary evidence, including any additional evidence that may be necessary, at the time of the hearing. Such an averment signifies the appellant's willingness to adhere to procedural mandates and substantiate their claims with appropriate documentation. 5.1.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has vehemently contended that the additions to their income have been made in contravention of the principles of natural justice, as they were not afforded a fair opportunity to explain the transactions or substantiate their position. The invocation of these principles, which form the cornerstone of any judicial or quasi-judicial process, is most pertinent to this case. It is an established precept that every individual must Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 be afforded an equitable opportunity to be heard and to present their case in a manner free from prejudice or bias. 5.1.3 The procedural lapses under such circumstances necessitate a reconsideration of the matter, ensuring adherence to the dictates of natural justice. It is, therefore, just and equitable that the appellant be granted an additional opportunity to rectify any procedural deficiencies and to present their case in its entirety. 5.1.4 To this end, it is resolved that the matter shall be reconsidered, and the appellant shall be permitted to submit the requisite evidence in support of their claims. This course of action is imperative, not only to uphold the principles of natural justice but also to ensure that the adjudication of the appellant's case is conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from any semblance of prejudice. 5.1.5 In conclusion, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances attendant to this case, it is both judicious and equitable to grant the appellant another opportunity to comply with procedural requisites and to present their case in full. This approach aligns with the tenets of justice and equity, ensuring that the appellant's grievances are addressed in a manner befitting the high standards of fairness that our system of law seeks to uphold. 5.2 Upon a careful review of the submissions and documentation provided by the appellant, it is my considered opinion that, in light of the unique facts and circumstances of this case, along with the evidence furnished, the best judgment assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 rws144 of the Income Tax Act does not, prima facie, appear to be appropriate or just. To arrive at a fair and accurate determination of the appellant's income, the additions made and the issues raised herein require a more detailed and exhaustive examination. 5.3 As per the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) in case of order of assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act, may set aside such assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. This proviso has been inserted in the Act w.e.f. 1.10.2024. The said proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act is reproduced as under: \"251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers- 1. in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; [Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;) 5.4 In the instant case the assessment order has been issued u/s 147 rws 144 by the AO and there are issues which need to be further examined and investigated by the AO. In view of the above facts and changes in the Act, as enumerated above, in my considered opinion the submissions filed by the appellant in the appellate proceedings, are germane to the correct appreciation of the issues under deliberation. It is a fit case for set-aside of assessment made by the AO. 5.5 Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 147 rws144 of the Income Tax Act dated 21.03.2023 is hereby set aside for making fresh assessment, denovo, after taking into account the above submissions filed by the appellant. The Assessing Officer is directed to make a fresh assessment after Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 giving adequate opportunities to the appellant and complying with all extant rules and provisions and following principles of natural justice and take into account any further submissions which it has to file during the course of the said proceedings. The AO should also conduct all necessary enquiries to verify the submissions filed by the appellant. 5.6 The appellant is also directed to comply with all the notices/correspondences issued by the AO. The appellant may note that all necessary compliance should be made at the earliest and within the time limit prescribed in the notices issued by Ld. AO. It should be the endeavour of the Appellant to promptly submit necessary evidences in support of its claim/Income tax return, suomotu or as required by the Assessing Officer without causing undue delays leading to submissions towards the fag end of the limitation period. 6. The assessment order is set aside accordingly in accordance with proviso to S 251(1)(a) with a direction to the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with rules and timelines prescribed u/s 153(3) of the Act. 7. For statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] has erred in confirming validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act']. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. JAO has initiated the reassessment proceedings without fulfilling the preconditions required to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/s 148-151 of the Act. Further, the Ld. JAO failed to follow the directions as provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Ashish Agrawal-[(2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)] 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 469 ITR 46] while passing the order. 1.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, it is humbly submitted that the notice u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 is barred by limitation. 1.5 In the above circumstances, facts and in law, the Appellants submits that this case is not fit for initiation of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment order passed is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151A 2.1 The Ld. JAO has erred in assuming the jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148 which is in non-compliance to the provisions of section 151A of the Act. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 3. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings before the Tribunal. He submitted that this legal ground was also raised before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC but he did not adjudicate the same including the merits of the case and restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. He submitted that there are no disputed facts or new facts involved and therefore the legal issue may be decided by the Tribunal. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), the Ld. AR submitted that as per the said decision the due date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as applicable to the instant case is 31.03.2022, however the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 22.07.2022 and thus said notice issued by the Ld. JAO/AO u/s 148 of the Act on 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation. He further relied on the following decision(s) in support of his above claim: i. UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC); ii. Pratiksha Garg Vs. ACIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi-HC) order dated 19.12.2024; iii. Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2881/PUN/2024, order dated 25.04.2025 (Pune-Trib.); iv. Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 388 (Mumbai-Trib.) order dated 14.01.2025; v. Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in Writ Petition Nol. 1325 of 2023, order dated 06.10.2025. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that since the assessee failed to file any compliance before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not considered the impugned issues on merits and not adjudicated the legal ground as well, the matter may be set aside to the file Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee as well as various Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. AR. Admittedly, there was non- compliance by the assessee before the Ld. AO which constrained him to pass an exparte order qua the assessee. We observe that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is a non-speaking order and he has not adjudicated the matter on merits including the legal ground raised by the assessee and set aside the assessment order for denovo adjudication by the Ld. AO. Before us, the assessee has raised a legal ground (ground No. 1 reproduced above) challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) on the ground that the notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. On perusal of this legal ground raised by the assessee, we find that it goes to the root of the matter and does not require verification of any additional/ new facts. Further, we find that the impugned issue raised in the said legal ground stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court as well as Co-ordinate Bench(es) of the Tribunal including the Pune Tribunal. In the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play, to proceed and adjudicate the legal ground at this stage. 8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The assessee received the notice u/s 148 of the Act for the relevant AY 2015-16 under consideration on 25.07.2022 from the Ld. AO/JAO (page 6 of the paper book refers). Under the old provisions of section 149, which will be applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, the notice u/s 148 would not have been issued beyond the period of 6 years from end of the relevant assessment year. The period of 6 years from the AY 2015-16 laps on 31.03.2022. As stated earlier notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 25.07.2022 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under the said provisions of the Act. We find that the Revenue has also conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) that the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is not applicable to the notices issued for AY 2015-16. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below : “19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re- assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re- assessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.” Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime; e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, PART C including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA (or (2) Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable 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; g. Section 2 of TOLA defines “specified Act” to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra). 9. Similarly, at para 46 of the order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.” 10. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 114 of the order has observed as under: “G. Conclusions 114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: a. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148; d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021; g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;” 11. In the case of Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: “2. The above Writ Petition is filed to quash and set aside the Notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is A.Y.2015-16. As far as this assessment C) year is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) in paragraph 19(f) has recorded the concession made by the learned ASG that for the A.Y.2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 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. 3. Admittedly in the facts of the present case, the Notice issued under Section 148 is after 1st April 2021 (namely, on 28th July 2022). This being the case, we find that in the facts of the present case, the Notice issued under Section 148 dated 28th July 2022 would have to be dropped and cannot be proceeded with further. 4. We accordingly quash and set aside the said notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act.” 12. We also find the Pune Tribunal in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal (supra) in turn relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has taken a similar view on the impugned issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: “13. We find since the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued after the statutory due date as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), therefore, such notice for reopening being barred by limitation has to be quashed. We accordingly, quash the re- assessment notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground i.e. validity of re-assessment proceedings, therefore, the grounds challenging the addition on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.” Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.486/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 13. In view of the factual matrix of the case and legal position set out above and in the absence of any contrary material / judicial precedent brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the impugned notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Ground no. 1 (along with its sub-grounds 1.1 to 1.5) is accordingly allowed. As the assessee succeeds on this ground, the other grounds raised are rendered academic in nature and therefore not adjudicated. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 09th December, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "