SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” �ायपीठ पुणेम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3279/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, s. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. PAN: AANPC8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue by Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date of hearing 05/03/2026 Date of pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)(NFAC) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for AY 2015-16 dated 22/10/2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s 147 rws 144 rws 144B of the Income tax Act dated 22/05/2023. Findings and Analysis :

ITA No.3279/PUN/2025 [A] 2. We have heard both the parties. Ld.AR and Ld.DR has argued only on the legal grounds and no submission was made on merits of the addition. 3. The Assessee had filed Original Return of Income for AY 2015-16 on 30/09/2015 declaring Total Income at Rs.14,62,840/-. 4. The Assessee’s case was reopened by issuing Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 30/06/2021. After the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aashish Agarwal, the Notice u/s 148 dated 30/06/2021 was treated by the Assessing Officer as Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and Information was provided by the AO to the Assessee regarding reopening. Then Order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 27/07/2022. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 27/07/2022. 5. These were basic facts. These facts have not been disputed by Ld.DR. Ld.AR of the Assessee submitted that the Notice u/s 148 is Time barred and department should have dropped the proceedings as submitted by Ld.AG before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. The Ld.AR relied on following decisions: -Deepak Steel & Power Ltd vs CBDT (2025) 476 ITR 369 (SC) -Verjinia Foods Ltd vs ITO 179 taxmann.com 626 (BOM) -Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) -Motiwala Auto Pvt Ltd vs ITO, ITA 486/PUN/2025 -Kumar Matunga Projects vs ITO, ITA 2200/PUN/2025 2

ITA No.3279/PUN/2025 [A] 7. Ld.Departmental Representative vehemently relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as of the CIT(A). 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “ 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to athree judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f)which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed underthe Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” Unqote. 9. The above referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurekumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held as under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 3

ITA No.3279/PUN/2025 [A] 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd (supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 201516, all the notices issued on or after01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.”Unqote. 10. Similarly, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.” Unquote. 11. ITAT Pune in the case of Kumar Matunga Project vs ITO in ITA 2200/PUN/2025 for AY 2015-16 vide order dated 09/01/2026 has held as under : Quote, “ 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to page 1 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 which is dated 16.04.2021. Referring to pages 2 to 4 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 which is dated 24.05.2022. Referring to page 5 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 which is dated 23.07.2022. Similarly, the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, copy of 4

ITA No.3279/PUN/2025 [A] which is placed at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book is also dated 23.07.2022. ……………………………. 11. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motiwala Auto Private Limited vs. ITO (supra) where the Tribunal after considering various decisions has held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 dated 25.05.2022 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 7 onwards read as under:………………………….. 12. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Tribunal in the case of Motiwala Auto Private Limited vs. ITO (supra), therefore, respectfully following the same and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Ld. DR, the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. We hold accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.” Unquote. 12. ITAT Visakahapatnam in the case of Bhargav Ram Munagapati Vs. ITO in ITA No.510/VIZ/2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 has held as under : Quote, “”13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) and consistently following the view taken in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025, we are of theview that re-assessment proceedings initiated for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the instant case are without jurisdiction and hence assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act consequent to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Since the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee by quashing the re-assessment order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Unquote. 13. Similar view has taken by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No.2881/PUN/2024 wherein, notice u/s.148 dated 18.07.2022 was quashed by ITAT. 5

ITA No.3279/PUN/2025 [A] 14. We have already reproduced facts of the case. Since, the facts are identical, respectfully following the judicial precedence , we hold that Notice u/s 148 is time barred and the reassessment is void ab initio. No contrary decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court has been brought to our notice. In the result the Legal ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 15. We have decided only one Legal Ground, we do not intend to comment on other grounds and dismiss other grounds as unadjudicated. 16. Accordingly Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DIPAK P.RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th March, 2026/ Sujeet आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT, concerned. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब�च, पुणे / DR, 4. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड�फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. 6