Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal concerns the validity of a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The notice was issued on 22/07/2022, beyond the permissible limitation period as per the amended provisions and relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 22.07.2022 was barred by limitation. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal, which established that notices issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16, dated 22.07.2022, is barred by limitation in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 149, 147, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ORDER Per O. P. Kant (A.M.)
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order dated 11th July, 2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Center [in short the ‘CIT (A)’] for Assessment Year 2015-16, raising following grounds :-
“I. Reopening is bad in law: Reopening is bad in law: 1. The reopening of Assessment for A.Y. 2015 1. The reopening of Assessment for A.Y. 2015 1. The reopening of Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22/07/2022 is barred notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22/07/2022 is barred notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22/07/2022 is barred by limitation. by limitation.
2. The Approval granted by the sanction authority was 2. The Approval granted by the sanction authority was 2. The Approval granted by the sanction authority was not proper therefore the reopening is bad in law. not proper therefore the reopening is bad in law. not proper therefore the reopening is bad in law. II. Natural Justice: tural Justice: 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Id. Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Id. Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Id. Assessing Officer had not provided proper and sufficient Assessing Officer had not provided proper and sufficient Assessing Officer had not provided proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing on issuance of show cause notice opportunity of hearing on issuance of show cause notice opportunity of hearing on issuance of show cause notice nor provided proper video nor provided proper video conference nor provided the conference nor provided the material and the self serving statement recorded of third material and the self serving statement recorded of third material and the self serving statement recorded of third party, for making the alleged addition, resulting party, for making the alleged addition, resulting party, for making the alleged addition, resulting violation of natural justice. violation of natural justice. Ш. Addition of Rs. 57,50,000 u/s 69A Ш. Addition of Rs. 57,50,000 u/s 69A: 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the Assessing Officer making the addition u/s 69A of the sessing Officer making the addition u/s 69A of the sessing Officer making the addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 50,00,000 and interest of Rs. 7,50,000/ Act of Rs. 50,00,000 and interest of Rs. 7,50,000/ Act of Rs. 50,00,000 and interest of Rs. 7,50,000/- merely on third party evidence without confronting the merely on third party evidence without confronting the merely on third party evidence without confronting the same to the assessee therefore the addition may be same to the assessee therefore the addition may be same to the assessee therefore the addition may be deleted. deleted.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding th 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the e action of the Assessing Officer upholding addition u/s 69A of the Act Assessing Officer upholding addition u/s 69A of the Act Assessing Officer upholding addition u/s 69A of the Act and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.
6. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, 6. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, 6. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or modify all or any of the above grounds of delete and/or modify all or any of the above grounds of delete and/or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. appeal.”
2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Legal Ground No. 1 Legal Ground No. 1, challenging the jurisdiction of the , challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. It was Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. It was Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of I Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal ndia v. Rajiv Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)], the reassessment proceedings initiated taxmann.com 70 (SC)], the reassessment proceedings initiated taxmann.com 70 (SC)], the reassessment proceedings initiated under the old or un under the old or un-amended provisions of section 148, read amended provisions of section 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Pro (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 visions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), are without authority of law. (“TOLA”), are without authority of law. Assessment Year 2015-16, the 2.1 It was contended that for It was contended that for Assessment Year 2015 limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions of section 148, as saved by the first proviso to section 149, of section 148, as saved by the first proviso to section 149, of section 148, as saved by the first proviso to section 149, .03.2022. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could expired on 31.03.2022 Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 Admittedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 Admittedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 22.07.2022, well pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued on pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued on 22.07.2022 beyond the permissible limit beyond the permissible limitation. 2.2 A detailed chart of the chronology of events of chronology of events of various notices issued by the issued by the Assessing Officer is reproduce is reproduced here under:-
Sr. Date Date Event Page No. No. 5 1. 19/04/2021 Original notice issued u/s 19/04/2021 Original notice issued u/s 148 148 of of the the Act-Old Act provisions. 2. 04/05/0222 Order 04/05/0222 Order of of the the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced pronounced in the case of Union of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) (supra) Notice under section 148A(b) 16-17 3. 27/05/2022 Notice under section 148A(b) 27/05/2022 of the Act issued. 18-22 4. 07/06/2022 Reply filed by the Petitioner 07/06/2022 Reply filed by the Petitioner to the notice under section to the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Order passed under Section 23-27 5. 22/07/2022 Order passed under Section 22/07/2022 148A(d) of the Act. 29 6. 22/07/2022 Notice issued under section 22/07/2022 Notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 7. 31/03/2022 Last date to issue notice 31/03/2022 Last date to issue notice under amended provision of under amended provision of the Act as per the 1st Proviso to section 149 of the Act. to section 149 of the Act.
Before us the the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee ssessee relied on the decision of the C decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Bhawarlal Jain in ITA number 669 Jain in ITA number 6695/M/2024. Per contra the contra the Ld. DR relied on the Order of the lower on the Order of the lower authorities.
We have heard rival submission We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the of the parties on the challenge to the legal ground assailing the jurisdiction of the challenge to the legal ground assailing the jurisdiction of the challenge to the legal ground assailing the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer to issue notices under Section Section 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice issued under section 148 on whether the notice issued under section 148 on whether the notice issued under section 148 on 22.07.2022 for for A.Y. 2015-16 is barred by limitation. is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpreted the interplay betw has conclusively interpreted the interplay between the amended een the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or 16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they , as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA.
4.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the is whether the six-year period under the old regime was still year period under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice alive on the date of issuance of notice. Applying the aforesaid Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2015 year limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022 31.03.2022. The notice under section 148 having been issued on otice under section 148 having been issued on otice under section 148 having been issued on 22.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation. the same is clearly barred by limitation.
4.2 We also note that identical issues have been examined and We also note that identical issues have been examined and We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including in decided by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including in decided by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including in Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain (supra) wherein notices issued (supra) wherein notices issued after 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015 after 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time 16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajiv Bansal Rajiv Bansal (supra). For ready reference, For ready reference, findings of the Coordinate B Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under is reproduced as under:-
“3.The Ld.AR argued and first took The Ld.AR argued and first took up the legal ground up the legal ground related to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for related to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for related to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice The Ld.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice The Ld.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and finally, the order passed under section 148 of the Act and finally, the order passed under section 148 of the Act and finally, the order passed under se under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice was issued ction 148A(d) of the Act and the notice was issued under section 148 of the Act, the dates and events are under section 148 of the Act, the dates and events are under section 148 of the Act, the dates and events are tabulated as follows: tabulated as follows:-
Sr.No. Particulars AY 2015-15 1 Original notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – Old Provisions 28/04/2021 28/04/2021 2 Last date to issue notice under amended provision of the Act 31/03/2022 31/03/2022 as per the 1st proviso to Section 149 of the Act. 3 Order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of 04/05/2022 04/05/2022 India vs Ashish Agarwal 4 Show cause notice was issued in accordance with the 27/05/2022 27/05/2022 decision in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and the appellant was granted time upto 10.06.2022. 5 Order passed by the Ld. JAO u/s 148/A(d) of the Act 22/07/2022 22/07/2022 6 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – New Provisions. 22/07/2022 22/07/2022 The Ld. AR, during the course of arguments, submitted The Ld. AR, during the course of arguments, submitted The Ld. AR, during the course of arguments, submitted that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2015 that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2015 that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2015-16 has been quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of been quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of been quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). The issue stands square 70 (SC). The issue stands squarely covered by the decision ly covered by the decision of the Co of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'B', in ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'B', in the case of ACIT, Circle 19(1) v. Manish Financial, in ITA the case of ACIT, Circle 19(1) v. Manish Financial, in ITA the case of ACIT, Circle 19(1) v. Manish Financial, in & 5050/Mum/2024, order dated 02.12.2024. Nos. 5055 & 5050/Mum/2024, order dated 02.12.2024. Nos. 5055 & 5050/Mum/2024, order dated 02.12.2024. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:
"6. We heard the parties and perused the material on "6. We heard the parties and perused the material on "6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case, the AO issued the original record. In assessee's case, the AO issued the original record. In assessee's case, the AO issued the original notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 for AY 2015 notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 for AY 2015 notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 and consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble and consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble and consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section said notice was deemed as notice issued under section said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to the by limitation as per the first proviso to the un-amended provisions of section 149(1) as has been amended provisions of section 149(1) as has been amended provisions of section 149(1) as has been confirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in confirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in confirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the the the case case case of of of Rajeev Rajeev Rajeev Bansal Bansal Bansal (Supra). (Supra). (Supra). The The The relevant relevant relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as u observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as u observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under-
Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor 19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor 19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of india, made the following submissions on General of india, made the following submissions on General of india, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e)** behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e)*****
(f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015 year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during completion during completion during the period prescribed the period prescribed under the period prescribed under under TOLA; TOLA;***** 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can ) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can ) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued be issued at any time for an assessment year at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; beginning on or before 1 April 2021;
(ii) if it is borred at the time when the notice is sought ) if it is borred at the time when the notice is sought ) if it is borred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified to be issued because of the "time limits specified to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime.
Thus, a notice coul Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 d be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021- of the new regime for assessment year 2021 of the new regime for assessment year 2021 2022 and before only if the time limit for 2022 and before only if the time limit for 2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under issuance of such notice continued to exist under issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, section 149(1)(b) of the old regime,
The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires t 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires t determination of whether the time limit prescribed determination of whether the time limit prescribed determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021 exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. 2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six new regime cannot be issued if the period of six new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years from the end of the relevant assessment years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the year has expired at the time of issuance of the year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of . This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for new regime applies prospectively. For example, for new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the a the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period 2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen Revenue could have had the power to reopen Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments fo assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped 2013 if the escaped ossessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. ossessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. ossessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of The proviso limits the retrospective operation of The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. assesses.
This issue of notice under section 148 issued for 2015 7. This issue of notice under section 148 issued for 2015 7. This issue of notice under section 148 issued for 2015- 16 being time barred is considered by the coordinate 16 being time barred is considered by the coordinate 16 being time barred is considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) bench in the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) bench in the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it is held that and it is held that ****** ******For the A.Y.2015-16, the Revenue itself has 16, the Revenue itself has contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the notices i above, all the notices issued on or after 01/04/2021 ssued on or after 01/04/2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for will have to be dropped as they will not fall for will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. Here notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015-16 has been Here notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015 Here notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015 issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by limitation under the ne limitation under the new provision of Section 149(1) w provision of Section 149(1) and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly, all the and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly, all the and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly, all the notices are quashed being barred by limitation on the notices are quashed being barred by limitation on the notices are quashed being barred by limitation on the reasons given above and we are not going on the reasons given above and we are not going on the reasons given above and we are not going on the reasons given by the Id. CIT (A) for quashing the reasons given by the Id. CIT (A) for quashing the reasons given by the Id. CIT (A) for quashing the notice." notice."
A combi 8. A combined reading of the above observations of the ned reading of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of coordinate Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of coordinate Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of coordinate bench makes it clear that the test for checking the validity bench makes it clear that the test for checking the validity bench makes it clear that the test for checking the validity of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for AYs 2021 AYs 2021-22 or prior years is whether the period of six e period of six years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in that case the notice under section 148 becomes invalid. that case the notice under section 148 becomes invalid. that case the notice under section 148 becomes invalid. These o observations also makes it clear that the time limit bservations also makes it clear that the time limit of ten years as per the amended provisions of section of ten years as per the amended provisions of section of ten years as per the amended provisions of section 149(1)(b) 149(1)(b) can be applied only prospectively. In assessee's can be applied only prospectively. In assessee's case when we apply this test for AY 2015 case when we apply this test for AY 2015-16, the period of 16, the period of six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015 AY 2015-16 is invalid since it is barred by limitation. red by limitation. Accordingly the assessment completed under section 147 Accordingly the assessment completed under section 147 Accordingly the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed. of the Act is liable to be quashed.
9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time barred the other legal contentions barred the other legal contentions raised by the assessee raised by the assessee in the CO have become academic not warranting any in the CO have become academic not warranting any in the CO have become academic not warranting any adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed. adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed. adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed.
10. We have quashed the order of re 10. We have quashed the order of re-assessment for AY assessment for AY 2015-16 considering the legal contentions raised by the 16 considering the legal contentions raised by the 16 considering the legal contentions raised by the assessee in the C.O. assessee in the C.O. therefore the oppeals of the revenue therefore the oppeals of the revenue for AY 2015 for AY 2015-16 contending the relief granted by the CIT(A) 16 contending the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed." Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed." Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed."
4. The Ld. DR advanced arguments and filed written 4. The Ld. DR advanced arguments and filed written 4. The Ld. DR advanced arguments and filed written submission, which is taken on record. The Ld. DR placed submission, which is taken on record. The Ld. DR placed submission, which is taken on record. The Ld. DR placed reliance on paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev reliance on paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev reliance on paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and supported the orders passed by the Bansal (supra) and supported the orders passed by the Bansal (supra) and supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. revenue authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material availab material available on record. We find that the facts of the le on record. We find that the facts of the assessee's case are identical to those in the judgment of assessee's case are identical to those in the judgment of assessee's case are identical to those in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Co (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Manish Financial (supra), has also fo case of Manish Financial (supra), has also fo case of Manish Financial (supra), has also followed the said judgment. Although the Ld. DR has relied upon said judgment. Although the Ld. DR has relied upon said judgment. Although the Ld. DR has relied upon paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the said observation is not applicable to A.Y. we find that the said observation is not applicable to A.Y. we find that the said observation is not applicable to A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble 16. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble 16. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is appl Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. In view of icable to the present case. In view of the above, the appellate order is hereby set aside, and the the above, the appellate order is hereby set aside, and the the above, the appellate order is hereby set aside, and the addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/ addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/- made by the Ld. AO is made by the Ld. AO is deleted. deleted. 4.3 Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Virjinia Foods Ltd. v. ITO [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 626 (Bom)] has [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 626 (Bom)] has [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 626 (Bom)] has categorically held that notices issued for A.Y. 2015 categorically held that notices issued for A.Y. 2015 categorically held that notices issued for A.Y. 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 are invalid, taking note of the concession after 01.04.2021 are invalid, taking note of the concession after 01.04.2021 are invalid, taking note of the concession recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal Rajiv Bansal (supra). The relevant finding of Hon’ble The relevant finding of Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as High Court is reproduced as under: “8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue does not “8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue does not “8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) [paragraph 19(1)] records Bansal's case (supra) [paragraph 19(1)] records Bansal's case (supra) [paragraph 19(1)] records the submissions made by the Ld. Additional the submissions made by the Ld. Additional the submissions made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India about Solicitor General of India about the Revenue the Revenue conceding that for the A.Y. 2015 conceding that for the A.Y. 2015-16, all notices 16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 will have to be issued on or after 1st April 2021 will have to be issued on or after 1st April 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion dropped as they would not fall for completion dropped as they would not fall for completion during during during the the the period period period prescribed prescribed prescribed under under under TOLA. TOLA. TOLA. However, it is his submission that in the operative However, it is his submission that in the operative However, it is his submission that in the operative part of the order in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) of the order in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) of the order in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) [paragraph 114 Conclusion], the Hon'ble Apex [paragraph 114 Conclusion], the Hon'ble Apex [paragraph 114 Conclusion], the Hon'ble Apex Court has not made any distinction in respect of Court has not made any distinction in respect of Court has not made any distinction in respect of reassessment notices issued for the A.Y.2015-16 reassessment notices issued for the A.Y.2015 reassessment notices issued for the A.Y.2015 and the assessment notices issued for any other and the assessment notices issued for any other and the assessment notices issued for any other assessment year. He, assessment year. He, therefore, contends that as therefore, contends that as per his reading of the said order in Rajeev Bansal per his reading of the said order in Rajeev Bansal per his reading of the said order in Rajeev Bansal (supra), it appears that though a concession has (supra), it appears that though a concession has (supra), it appears that though a concession has been made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the been made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the been made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the A.Y.2015 A.Y.2015-16, the said concession does not appear 16, the said concession does not appear to have been judicially recognized b to have been judicially recognized by the Hon'ble y the Hon'ble Apex Court. He, however, fairly admits that the Apex Court. He, however, fairly admits that the Apex Court. He, however, fairly admits that the reassessment proceedings could not have been reassessment proceedings could not have been reassessment proceedings could not have been proceeded further as the order dated 9th May proceeded further as the order dated 9th May proceeded further as the order dated 9th May 2024 of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2024 of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2024 of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2023 has quashed and set aside the Notice dated 2023 has quashed and set aside the Notice dated 2023 has quashed and set aside the Notice dated 5th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act on two separate grounds one that it was time on two separate grounds one that it was time on two separate grounds one that it was time barred and the other being on the basis of the barred and the other being on the basis of the barred and the other being on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). The judgment of this Court in Limited (supra). The judgment of this Court in Limited (supra). The judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) is not yet Limited (supra) is not yet set aside or modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court. set aside or modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court. set aside or modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the 9. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the 9. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Applicant/petitioner submitted that the issue of Applicant/petitioner submitted that the issue of Applicant/petitioner submitted that the issue of concession made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the concession made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the concession made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the A.Y.2015 A.Y.2015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case, came up for case, came up for consideration before different High Courts where it consideration before different High Courts where it consideration before different High Courts where it is held that Notices issued under Section 148 after is held that Notices issued under Section 148 after is held that Notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 would be bad in 16 would be bad in law. In this regard he relied upon the following law. In this regard he relied upon the following law. In this regard he relied upon the following judgments: judgments:
(a) ITO v. Venkatlal lyya (a) ITO v. Venkatlal lyyappa Rajana [2025] 178 ppa Rajana [2025] 178 taxmann.com 410 (Karnataka) [05 taxmann.com 410 (Karnataka) [05-08-2025] 2025] (b) (b) (b) Pratishtha Pratishtha Pratishtha Garg Garg Garg v. v. v. Asstt. Asstt. Asstt. CIT, CIT, CIT, Central Central Central Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central [2025] 171 Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central [2025] 171 Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) [19 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) [19-12-2024] (c)Lalit (c)Lalit (c)Lalit Gulati Gulati Gulati v. v. v. Asstt. Asstt. Asstt. CIT CIT CIT [2025] [2025] [2025] 174 174 174 taxmann.com 273/305 taxmann.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (Delhi) [02 Taxman 11 (Delhi) [02-05- 2025]
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have also perused the also perused the papers and proceedings. The papers and proceedings. The Assessment Year involved in Writ Petition bearing Assessment Year involved in Writ Petition bearing Assessment Year involved in Writ Petition bearing No. 1428 of 2023 is A.Y.2015 No. 1428 of 2023 is A.Y.2015-16. The said Writ The said Writ Petition [filed by the Assessee Petition [filed by the Assessee-Petitioner) was Petitioner) was allowed on 9th May 2024 observing the following:- allowed on 9th May 2024 observing the following allowed on 9th May 2024 observing the following "1 Counsel for Petitioners state that the issue "1 Counsel for Petitioners state that the issue "1 Counsel for Petitioners state that the issue in these petitions will be covered by the recent in these petitions will be covered by the recent in these petitions will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income d. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income d. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and ors., so also Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and ors., so also Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and ors., so also by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Technologies Technologies Limited Limited Limited V. V. V. Assistant Assistant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. Counsel for Respondents Mumbai and Ors. Counsel for Respondents Mumbai and Ors. Counsel for Respondents concurs concurs.
Therefore, the notice dated 6th April 2024 2. Therefore, the notice dated 6th April 2024 2. Therefore, the notice dated 6th April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case any re any re-assessment orged is passed, the same assessment orged is passed, the same also also also will will will stand stand stand quashed. quashed. quashed. So So So also, also, also, consequential demand notices or penalty consequential demand notices or penalty consequential demand notices or penalty
not notices will also stand quashed and set ices will also stand quashed and set aside." aside."
Meanwhile, the Revenue in such similar 11. Meanwhile, the Revenue in such similar 11. Meanwhile, the Revenue in such similar matters had filed Special Leave Petitions before matters had filed Special Leave Petitions before matters had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders passed by several High Courts on several passed by several High Courts on several passed by several High Courts on several jurisdictional jurisdictional issues issues in in rel relation ation to to the the re re- assessment proceedings for A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y. assessment proceedings for A.Y.2013 assessment proceedings for A.Y.2013 2017-18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court grouped 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court grouped 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court grouped together all such SLPs and the lead matter being together all such SLPs and the lead matter being together all such SLPs and the lead matter being Rajeev Bansal (supra) Rajeev Bansal (supra)
During the course of hearing in Rajeev Bansal 12. During the course of hearing in Rajeev Bansal 12. During the course of hearing in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Ld. Additional (supra), the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of Solicitor General of India India India made made made various various various submissions. submissions. submissions. What What What is is is important for our propose is paragraph 19(f) where important for our propose is paragraph 19(f) where important for our propose is paragraph 19(f) where the the the Hon'ble Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court recorded recorded recorded the the the submission of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General submission of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General submission of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India in respect of A.Y. 2015 of India in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. It reads thus 16. It reads thus:-
"19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional "19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional "19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following Solicitor General of India, made the following Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: submissions on behalf of the Revenue: submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a…… a…… b…... b…... f. f. f. The The The Revenue Revenue Revenue concedes concedes concedes that that that for for for the the the assessment year 2015 assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued 16, all notices issued on or before 1 April 2021 will have on or before 1 April 2021 will have on or before 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion dropped as they will not fall for completion dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA: during the period prescribed under TOLA: during the period prescribed under TOLA: g….. …..
….” ….”"(cnp.hanissupplied)
Meanwhile, despite this Court quashing the re- 13. Meanwhile, despite this Court quashing the re 13. Meanwhile, despite this Court quashing the re assessment proceedings in Writ Petition bearing assessment proceedings in Writ Petition bearing assessment proceedings in Writ Petition bearing No. 1428 of 2023, the Assessing Officer continued No. 1428 of 2023, the Assessing Officer continued No. 1428 of 2023, the Assessing Officer continued with the re with the re-assessment on the premises that the assessment on the premises that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case case of of Rajeev Rajeev Bansal Bansal (supra), (supra), would would be be applicable in the facts of the case of the Petitioner applicable in the facts of the case of the Petitioner applicable in the facts of the case of the Petitioner overlooking the crucial fact that it pertained to A.Y. overlooking the crucial fact that it pertained to A.Y. overlooking the crucial fact that it pertained to A.Y. 2015-16 for which a concession was made by the 16 for which a concession was made by the 16 for which a concession was made by the Ld. ASG. The Assessing Officer also completely Ld. ASG. The Assessing Officer also completely Ld. ASG. The Assessing Officer also completely overlooked the fact that in overlooked the fact that in view of the decision of view of the decision of this court in Hexaware Technologies Limited this court in Hexaware Technologies Limited this court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), he could not have proceeded further. (supra), he could not have proceeded further. (supra), he could not have proceeded further.
Both the parties agree that in view of the 14. Both the parties agree that in view of the 14. Both the parties agree that in view of the decision of this Court in Hexanware decision of this Court in Hexanware (supra), the Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025 is bad Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025 is bad Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025 is bad in law. This leave us with a limited question as to in law. This leave us with a limited question as to in law. This leave us with a limited question as to whether, in facts of the present case, the re- whether, in facts of the present case, the re whether, in facts of the present case, the re assessment order passed on 3rd March 2025 assessment order passed on 3rd March 2025 assessment order passed on 3rd March 2025 under Section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961 is under Section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961 is under Section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961 is bad in la bad in law even as per the Order of the Hon'ble w even as per the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).
As mentioned earlier, the Assessment Year 15. As mentioned earlier, the Assessment Year 15. As mentioned earlier, the Assessment Year involved is A.Y. 2015 involved is A.Y. 2015-16 and the Notice under 16 and the Notice under Section 148 is undisputedly issued on 5th April Section 148 is undisputedly issued on 5th April Section 148 is undisputedly issued on 5th April 2022, which is after 1st April 2021. Therefore, the 2022, which is after 1st April 2021. Th 2022, which is after 1st April 2021. Th said re said re-assessment proceedings ought to have assessment proceedings ought to have been dropped in view of the concession made by been dropped in view of the concession made by been dropped in view of the concession made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in paragraph 190) of the decision rendered in Rajeev paragraph 190) of the decision rendered in Rajeev paragraph 190) of the decision rendered in Rajeev Bansal Bansal (supra). This has clearly been missed by (supra). This has clearly been missed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025. dated 3rd March 2025.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also 16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also 16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also brought to our attention the decision of the Hon'ble brought to our attention the decision of the Hon'ble brought to our attention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC) (02-04- 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC) (02 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC) (02 2025), wherein at paragraph 4 and 5 it was held 25), wherein at paragraph 4 and 5 it was held 25), wherein at paragraph 4 and 5 it was held as under : as under : “4. The learned counsel appearing for the “4. The learned counsel appearing for the “4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the revenue with his usual fairness invited the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Co attention of this Court to a three judge bench urt to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. decision of this Court in Union of India v. decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Rajeev Rajeev Bansal Bansal Bansal 2024 2024 2024 SCC SCC SCC OnLIne OnLIne OnLIne SC SC SC 2693/[2024] 2693/[2024] 2693/[2024] 167 167 167 taxmann.com taxmann.com taxmann.com 70/301 70/301 70/301 Taxman Taxman Taxman 238/469 238/469 238/469 ITR ITR ITR 46 46 46 (SC), (SC), (SC), more more more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus : “19.(f) The Revenue con “19.(f) The Revenue concedes that f es that for the assessment assessment assessment year year year 20152016, 20152016, 20152016, all all all notices notices notices issued on or after April 2021 will have to be issued on or after April 2021 will have to be issued on or after April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion dropped as they will not fall for completion dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the during the period prescribed under the during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 202 Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 202 Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."
5. As the Revenue made a concession in the 5. As the Revenue made a concession in the 5. As the Revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment aforesaid decision that is for the assessment aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015 year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the they would not fall for completion during the they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under th period prescribed under the taxation and e taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as is required to be adjudicated in this matter as is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is the notices so far as the present litigation is the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021." concerned is dated 25.6.2021."
Similarly, in ITO v. R.K. Similarly, in ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P) Ltd. Build Creations (P) Ltd. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 59625 of (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 59625 of (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 59625 of 2024], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the 2024], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the 2024], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition arising out of a decision Special Leave Petition arising out of a decision Special Leave Petition arising out of a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Rajastan High Court in rendered by the Hon'ble Rajastan High Court in rendered by the Hon'ble Rajastan High Court in R.K. Buildcreations (P) Ltd. v. Incom R.K. Buildcreations (P) Ltd. v. Income e-tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 475/462 ITR 478/298 [2024] 159 taxmann.com 475/462 ITR 478/298 [2024] 159 taxmann.com 475/462 ITR 478/298 Taxman Taxman Taxman 166 166 166 (Rajasthan)/DBC (Rajasthan)/DBC (Rajasthan)/DBC WP WP WP No. No. No. 14414/2022. It would be equally relevant to refer 14414/2022. It would be equally relevant to refer 14414/2022. It would be equally relevant to refer to the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme to the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme to the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced below: Court, which is reproduced below:
"Delay condoned, "Delay condoned, Having regard t Having regard to the concession made by the o the concession made by the petitioner Department in the case of Union of petitioner Department in the case of Union of petitioner Department in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754), this Special Leave Petition would not 754), this Special Leave Petition would not 754), this Special Leave Petition would not survive for further consideration. survive for further consideration.
Hence, Hence, the the Special Specia l Leave Leave Petition Petition is is dismissed. dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand Pending application (s), if any, shall stand Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of." disposed of."
Thus, the Revenue has itself time and again Thus, the Revenue has itself time and again Thus, the Revenue has itself time and again reiterated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reiterated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reiterated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases that the Notice for reassessment above cases that the Notice for reassessment above cases that the Notice for reassessment issued under Section 148 issued under Section 148 on or after 1st April on or after 1st April 2021 [in respect of A.Y. 201516] ought to be 2021 [in respect of A.Y. 201516] ought to be 2021 [in respect of A.Y. 201516] ought to be dropped as conceded in para 19(1) of the decision dropped as conceded in para 19(1) of the decision dropped as conceded in para 19(1) of the decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
Accordingly, we hold that the Notice under 17. Accordingly, we hold that the Notice under 17. Accordingly, we hold that the Notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015 Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 issued on 5th April 16 issued on 5th April 2022 was barred by limitation and ought to have was barred by limitation and ought to have was barred by limitation and ought to have been dropped pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble been dropped pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble been dropped pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). We also agree with the submission of both (supra). We also agree with the submission of both (supra). We also agree with the submission of both the parties, that the Notice issued on 5th April the parties, that the Notice issued on 5th April the parties, that the Notice issued on 5th April 2022 under Section 1 2022 under Section 148 is also bad in law in view 48 is also bad in law in view of the decision of of the decision of this Court in Hexaware (supra)” this Court in Hexaware (supra)” 4.4 Similar views have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Similar views have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Similar views have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, as well as by the Hon’ble Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, as well as by the Hon’ble Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)]. The reliance placed by [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)]. The reliance placed by [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)]. The reliance placed by the learned DR on paragraph 112 of the learned DR on paragraph 112 of Rajiv Bansal Rajiv Bansal (supra) is misplaced, as the said observations do not dilute or misplaced, as the said observations do not dilute or misplaced, as the said observations do not dilute or override the clear concession and ratio applicable to A.Y. override the clear concession and ratio applicable to A.Y. override the clear concession and ratio applicable to A.Y. 2015-16.
4.5 In view of th In view of the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme e binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal Rajiv Bansal (supra), and the consistent judicial view (supra), and the consistent judicial view taken by the High Courts and Coordinate Benches, we hold that taken by the High Courts and Coordinate Benches, we hold that taken by the High Courts and Coordinate Benches, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 dated the notice issued under section 148 dated the notice issued under section 148 dated 22.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2015 Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation ed by limitation and, therefore, without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire reassessment without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire reassessment without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed.
5. Since the reassessment itself is annulled on jurisdictional Since the reassessment itself is annulled on jurisdictional Since the reassessment itself is annulled on jurisdictional grounds, the other grounds raised by the grounds, the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits do assessee on merits do not survive for adjudication and are left open. not survive for adjudication and are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 24 24/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/12/2025 /2025 Tarun, Sr. P.S.. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant The Appellant 2. The Respondent. The Respondent.