NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ()
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. Reop
1. Th notice by lim
2. Th not pr
II. Natu
3. Th
Asses
Asses oppor nor p mater party violat
Ш. Add
4. Th
Asses
Act o merel same delete
5. Th
Asses and t
Act.
6. Th delete appea pening is bad in law:
he reopening of Assessment for A.Y.
e u/s 148 of the Act dated 22/07/2
mitation.
he Approval granted by the sanction a roper therefore the reopening is bad in ural Justice:
he Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ssing Officer without appreciating ssing Officer had not provided proper rtunity of hearing on issuance of show provided proper video conference nor rial and the self serving statement rec
, for making the alleged additi tion of natural justice.
dition of Rs. 57,50,000 u/s 69A:
he Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ssing Officer making the addition u/
of Rs. 50,00,000 and interest of R ly on third party evidence without co e to the assessee therefore the add ed.
he Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the ssing Officer upholding addition u/s 6
taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 1
he Assessee craves leave to add, e and/or modify all or any of the abo al.”
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
2
Naresh Amratlal Shah
2015-16 vide
022 is barred authority was n law.
order of the that the Id.
and sufficient w cause notice r provided the corded of third ion, resulting order of the /s 69A of the Rs. 7,50,000/- onfronting the dition may be action of the 69A of the Act
115BBE of the alter, amend, ove grounds of 2. Before us,
Legal Ground
Assessing Officer submitted that in Court in Union taxmann.com 70
under the old or with the extensio
(Relaxation and (“TOLA”), are with 2.1 It was cont limitation for issu of section 148, expired on 31.03
not have resorte
Admittedly, in th pursuant to sect beyond the permi
2.2 A detailed notices issued b under:- the learned counsel for the as No. 1, challenging the juris r to initiate reassessment proc n view of the judgment of the H n of India v. Rajiv Bansa
0 (SC)], the reassessment proce r un-amended provisions of se ons granted under the Taxation
Amendment of Certain Provisi hout authority of law.
ended that for Assessment Yea uance of notice under the ame as saved by the first proviso
3.2022. Therefore, the Assessin ed to the old provisions by i he present case, the notice und tion 148A(d) was issued on 2
issible limitation.
chart of the chronology of ev by the Assessing Officer is re
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
3
Naresh Amratlal Shah ssessee pressed iction of the ceedings. It was Hon’ble Supreme al [(2024) 167
eedings initiated ection 148, read and Other Laws ions) Act, 2020
ar 2015-16, the nded provisions to section 149, ng Officer could invoking TOLA.
der section 148
2.07.2022, well vents of various eproduced here
Sr.
No.
D
1. 19/0
2. 04/0
3. 27/0
4. 07/0
5. 22/0
6. 22/0
7. 31/0
Date
Event
04/2021
Original notice issu
148
of the provisions.
05/0222
05/2022
Notice under section of the Act issued.
06/2022
Reply filed by the Pe to the notice under 148A(b) of the Act.
07/2022
Order passed under 148A(d) of the Act.
07/2022
Notice issued under 148 of the Act.
03/2022
Last date to issue under amended prov the Act as per the 1st to section 149 of the A ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
4
Naresh Amratlal Shah
Page
No.
ed u/s Act-Old
5
Hon’ble nounced of India upra)
148A(b) 16-17
etitioner section 18-22
Section 23-27
section 29
notice vision of Proviso
Act.
Before us th decision of the C Mukesh Kumar B Per contra the authorities. 4. We have he challenge to the Assessing Officer beyond the limita compass—wheth 22.07.2022 for Hon’ble Supreme has conclusively provisions of sec Significantly, the Supreme Court t after 01.04.2021 for completion wi 4.1 The Hon’ble ten-year limitati operates prospec test is whether th alive on the date test to the facts he Ld. Counsel for the Assesse Coordinate Bench of the Tribuna Bhawarlal Jain in ITA number Ld. DR relied on the Order eard rival submissions of the legal ground assailing the jur r to issue notices under Section ation period. The controversy l er the notice issued under s A.Y. 2015-16 is barred by e Court in Union of India v. Rajiv interpreted the interplay betwee tions 148 and 149, the old reg e Revenue itself conceded befo that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notic are liable to be dropped, as the ithin the period prescribed unde e Supreme Court further held th ion under section 149(1)(b), ctively, and for earlier assessm he six-year period under the old e of issuance of notice. Applyin of the present case, it is undi ITA No. 6142/MUM/25 5 Naresh Amratlal Shah ee relied on the al in the case of 6695/M/2024. r of the lower parties on the ri iction of the n 148 of the Act lies in a narrow section 148 on limitation. The v Bansal (supra) en the amended gime, and TOLA. ore the Hon’ble ces issued on or ey would not fall er TOLA. hat the extended as amended, ment years, the regime was still ng the aforesaid sputed that the six-year limitatio notice under sec the same is clear 4.2 We also not decided by Coor Mukesh Kumar B after 31.03.2022 following Rajiv B the Coordinate B “3.The L related reopenin The Ld.A under s under s under s tabulate
Sr.No.
1
2
3
n for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 3
ction 148 having been issued ly barred by limitation.
e that identical issues have bee rdinate Benches of the Tribuna
Bhawarlal Jain (supra) wherein for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed
Bansal (supra). For ready referen ench of the Tribunal is reproduc
Ld.AR argued and first took up the to assumption of juri iction by th ng the assessment under section 14
AR submitted a chart related to issu ection 148 of the Act and finally, the ection 148A(d) of the Act and the notic section 148 of the Act, the dates an ed as follows:-
Particulars
Original notice issued u/s 148
of the Act – Old Provisions
2
Last date to issue notice under amended provision of the Act as per the 1st proviso to Section 149 of the Act.
3
Order of the Hon’ble Supreme
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
6
Naresh Amratlal Shah
31.03.2022. The on 22.07.2022, n examined and al, including in n notices issued as time-barred, nce, findings of ced as under:- legal ground he Ld.AO for 47 of the Act.
ance of notice order passed ce was issued nd events are AY 2015-15
28/04/2021
31/03/2022
4
5
6
The Ld.
that the been qu
Union of 70 (SC).
of the C the case
Nos. 50
The rele
"6. We u/s 148/A(d) of the Act
2
Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – New Provisions.
2
. AR, during the course of argumen e notice issued by the Ld. AO for A.Y.
uashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167
The issue stands squarely covered b
Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumba e of ACIT, Circle 19(1) v. Manish Fin
055 & 5050/Mum/2024, order dated evant portion of the said order is repro heard the parties and perused the In assessee's case, the AO issued under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 fo nsequent to the directions given by e Court in the case of Ashish Agrawa
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
7
Naresh Amratlal Shah
04/05/2022
27/05/2022
22/07/2022
22/07/2022
nts, submitted
2015-16 has in the case of taxmann.com by the decision ai Bench 'B', in nancial, in ITA d 02.12.2024. duced below:
e material on d the original or AY 2015-16
y the Hon'ble al (supra), the said no 148A(b)
148A(d)
29.07.2
notice is un-amen confirme the ca observa
Ge beh
(f).
yea
202
com
TO 46. dow
(i) n be beg
(ii) to und otice was deemed as notice issued
. The AO after passing the order u
) issued the notice under section 022. The contention of the assessee is s barred by limitation as per the first nded provisions of section 149(1) ed by the decision of the Hon'ble Sup ase of Rajeev
Bansal
(Supra).
ations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court re
. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Addit neral of india, made the following su half of the Revenue: (a) to (e)*****
The Revenue concedes that for the ar 2015-16, all notices issued on or 21 will have to be dropped as they w mpletion during the period presc
OLA;*****
. The ingredients of the proviso cou wn for analysis as follows:
no notice under section 148 of the ne issued at any time for an asse ginning on or before 1 April 2021; if it is borred at the time when the no be issued because of the "time lim der the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the o
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
8
Naresh Amratlal Shah under section under section n 148 dated s that the said proviso to the as has been preme Court in The relevant ads as under- tional Solicitor ubmissions on e assessment r after 1 April will not fall for cribed under uld be broken ew regime can essment year otice is sought mits specified ld regime.
Th of 20
iss sec
det und exi Res new yea yea no ten new the wo yea pro Rev ass oss The Sec ass hus, a notice could be issued under the new regime for assessment 022 and before only if the tim suance of such notice continued to ction 149(1)(b) of the old regime, . The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b termination of whether the time lim der section 149(1)(b) of the old regime ist for the assessment year 2021-202 sultantly, a notice under Section w regime cannot be issued if the p ars from the end of the relevant ar has expired at the time of issu tice. This also ensures that the new n years prescribed under section 14 w regime applies prospectively. For e assessment year 2012-2013, the te ould have expired on 31 March 2023, ar period expired on 31 March 2019 oviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new venue could have had the powe sessments for the year 2012-2013 if sessment amounted to Rupees fifty la e proviso limits the retrospective ction 149(1)(b) to protect the inte sesses. ITA No. 6142/MUM/25 9 Naresh Amratlal Shah r section 148 t year 2021- me limit for o exist under b) requires the mit prescribed e continues to 22 and before. n 148 of the period of six t assessment uance of the w time limit of 49(1)(b) of the example, for en year period while the six 9. Without the w regime, the er to reopen f the escaped akhs or more. operation of erests of the 7. This 16 bein bench i and it is *** con abo wil com He iss lim and not rea rea not 8. A co Hon'ble bench m of notice AYs 202 years ha that cas These o of ten y 149(1)(b case wh six yea issue of notice under section 148 iss ng time barred is considered by th n the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt s held that ****For the A.Y.2015-16, the Reven ntended before the Hon'ble Supreme C ove, all the notices issued on or after ll have to be dropped as they wil mpletion during the period prescribed re notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015 ued on 28/07/2022 which is admitte mitation under the new provision of S d it is not covered under TOLA. Accor tices are quashed being barred by lim asons given above and we are not asons given by the Id. CIT (A) for tice." mbined reading of the above observ Supreme Court and the findings makes it clear that the test for checkin es issued under section 148 under n 21-22 or prior years is whether the as expired at the time of issue of such se the notice under section 148 bec observations also makes it clear that years as per the amended provisio b) can be applied only prospectively. hen we apply this test for AY 2015-16 rs has expired on 31.03.2022 and ITA No. 6142/MUM/25 10 Naresh Amratlal Shah sued for 2015- he coordinate t. Ltd. (supra) nue itself has Court as noted r 01/04/2021 ll not fall for d under TOLA. 5-16 has been edly barred by Section 149(1) rdingly, all the mitation on the going on the quashing the vations of the of coordinate ng the validity new regime for period of six h notice and in comes invalid. the time limit ons of section In assessee's 6, the period of therefore the notice d AY 201 Accordin of the A 9. Since 147 bas barred t in the adjudica 10. We 2015-16 assesse for AY 2 on the Accordin 4. The submiss reliance Bansal revenue
We h materia assesse the Hon (supra). case of said ju paragra dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 15-16 is invalid since it is barred ngly the assessment completed unde ct is liable to be quashed. e we have already quashed the order sed on the legal contention of notic the other legal contentions raised by CO have become academic not wa ation. Accordingly the CO is partly allo have quashed the order of re-asses 6 considering the legal contentions r ee in the C.O. therefore the oppeals o 2015-16 contending the relief granted merits of the issues have become ngly, the appeals of the revenue are d Ld. DR advanced arguments and sion, which is taken on record. The L e on paragraph 112 of the judgme (supra) and supported the orders p e authorities. have heard the rival submissions and l available on record. We find that th ee's case are identical to those in the n'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. R The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, M f Manish Financial (supra), has also udgment. Although the Ld. DR has aph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev B ITA No. 6142/MUM/25 11 Naresh Amratlal Shah of the Act for by limitation. er section 147 under section ce being time the assessee arranting any owed. ssment for AY raised by the of the revenue d by the CIT(A) e infructuous. dismissed." filed written Ld. DR placed ent in Rajeev passed by the d perused the he facts of the e judgment of Rajeev Bansal Mumbai, in the o followed the s relied upon ansal (supra), we find 2015-16 Suprem the abov addition deleted. 4.3 Further, the Ltd. v. ITO [(2 categorically held after 01.04.2021 recorded by the H The relevant find under: “8. Th dispute Bansa the su Solicito conced issued droppe during Howev part of [paragr Court h reasse and th that the said observation is not app 6. Accordingly, the ratio laid down b e Court is applicable to the present ca ve, the appellate order is hereby set a n of Rs. 2,02,90,700/- made by th e Hon’ble Bombay High Court i 2025) 179 taxmann.com 62 d that notices issued for A.Y. 1 are invalid, taking note of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv ding of Hon’ble High Court is he learned Counsel for the Reven e that the Hon'ble Apex Cour l's case (supra) [paragraph 19 ubmissions made by the Ld. or General of India about th ding that for the A.Y. 2015-16, on or after 1st April 2021 will ed as they would not fall for the period prescribed un ver, it is his submission that in th f the order in Rajeev Bansal's c raph 114 Conclusion], the Ho has not made any distinction in ssment notices issued for the A he assessment notices issued fo ITA No. 6142/MUM/25 12 Naresh Amratlal Shah licable to A.Y. by the Hon'ble ase. In view of aside, and the he Ld. AO is in Virjinia Foods 26 (Bom)] has 2015-16 on or the concession v Bansal (supra). reproduced as nue does not rt in Rajeev 9(1)] records Additional he Revenue all notices l have to be r completion nder TOLA. he operative case (supra) on'ble Apex n respect of A.Y.2015-16 or any other assess per his (supra) been m A.Y.20 to have Apex C reasse proceed 2024 o 2023 h 5th Ap on two barred judgme Limited Hexaw set asi
In Applica conces A.Y.20 conside is held 1st Ap law. In judgme
(a) ITO taxman sment year. He, therefore, conte s reading of the said order in Raj
), it appears that though a con made by the Ld. ASG in resp
015-16, the said concession does e been judicially recognized by Court. He, however, fairly adm ssment proceedings could not ded further as the order date of this Court in the Writ Petition has quashed and set aside the N ril 2022 issued under Section 14
o separate grounds one that i d and the other being on the b ent of this Court in Hexaware T d (supra). The judgment of th ware Technologies Limited (supra ide or modified by the Hon'ble Ap rejoinder, the learned Couns ant/petitioner submitted that th ssion made by the Ld. ASG in re
015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case, eration before different High Cou d that Notices issued under Sectio pril 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 would n this regard he relied upon th ents:
O v. Venkatlal lyyappa Rajana nn.com 410 (Karnataka) [05-08-2
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
13
Naresh Amratlal Shah ends that as ajeev Bansal cession has spect of the s not appear the Hon'ble mits that the have been ed 9th May No. 1428 of Notice dated
48 of the Act it was time basis of the Technologies his Court in a) is not yet pex Court.
sel for the he issue of espect of the came up for urts where it on 148 after d be bad in he following
[2025] 178
2025]
(b)
Pr
Pratish taxman
(c)Lalit taxman
2025]
We for the also p Assess No. 14 Petition allowe
"1
in jud
Ltd
Ta by Te
Co
Mu con
2. iss
Ac an als con ratishtha
Garg v.
Asstt.
CI htha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central nn.com 264 (Delhi) [19-12-2024]
Gulati v.
Asstt.
CIT
[2
nn.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (D e have heard the learned Counse e Petitioner and the Respondent perused the papers and procee sment Year involved in Writ Peti
428 of 2023 is A.Y.2015-16. Th n [filed by the Assessee-Petit d on 9th May 2024 observing the Counsel for Petitioners state th these petitions will be covered b dgment of this Court in Godrej d. v. The Assistant Commissione ax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and o y the judgment of this Court in chnologies
Limited
V.
ommissioner of Income Tax Cir umbai and Ors. Counsel for R ncurs.
Therefore, the notice dated 6th sued under Section 148 of the ct, 1961 is quashed and set as ny re-assessment orged is passe so will stand quashed.
nsequential demand notices
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
14
Naresh Amratlal Shah
IT,
Central l [2025] 171
2025]
174
elhi) [02-05- el appearing ts and have edings. The tion bearing he said Writ tioner) was e following:- at the issue by the recent ej Industries er of Income ors., so also n Hexaware
Assistant rcle 15(1)(2)
Respondents h April 2024
Income Tax ide. In case ed, the same
So also, or penalty no as 11. M matters the Ho passed juri ic assess
2017-1
togethe
Rajeev
Du (supra) India importa the H submis of India
"19
So su a…
b…
f.
as on dro du g…
tices will also stand quashe ide."
Meanwhile, the Revenue in su s had filed Special Leave Petit on'ble Supreme Court challenging d by several High Courts ctional issues in relation t
sment proceedings for A.Y.2013
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Cou er all such SLPs and the lead m v Bansal (supra) uring the course of hearing in Raj
), the Ld. Additional Solicitor made various submissions.
ant for our propose is paragraph
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court rec ssion of the Ld. Additional Solic a in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. It re
9. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned olicitor General of India, made th ubmissions on behalf of the Reven
……
…...
The Revenue concedes tha sessment year 2015-16, all no n or before 1 April 2021 will opped as they will not fall for uring the period prescribed under …..
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
15
Naresh Amratlal Shah ed and set uch similar tions before g the orders on several to the re-
3-14 to A.Y.
urt grouped matter being ajeev Bansal
General of What is h 19(f) where corded the citor General eads thus:- d Additional he following nue:
at for the tices issued have to be r completion r TOLA:
….
Me assess No. 142 with th order p case applica overloo 2015-1 Ld. AS overloo this c (supra)
Bo decisio Assess in law. whethe assess under bad in Apex C
As involve Section 2022, said r been d
.”"(cnp.hanissupplied) eanwhile, despite this Court quas sment proceedings in Writ Petit
28 of 2023, the Assessing Office he re-assessment on the premis passed by the Hon'ble Apex C of Rajeev
Bansal
(supra), able in the facts of the case of th oking the crucial fact that it perta
16 for which a concession was m
SG. The Assessing Officer also oked the fact that in view of the court in Hexaware Technolog
), he could not have proceeded fu oth the parties agree that in v on of this Court in Hexanware sment Order dated 3rd March 2
. This leave us with a limited qu er, in facts of the present ca sment order passed on 3rd M
Section 147 of the Income tax A n law even as per the Order of Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).
s mentioned earlier, the Asses ed is A.Y. 2015-16 and the N n 148 is undisputedly issued o which is after 1st April 2021. Th re-assessment proceedings oug dropped in view of the concessio
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
16
Naresh Amratlal Shah shing the re- tion bearing er continued ses that the Court in the would be he Petitioner ained to A.Y.
made by the o completely e decision of ies Limited urther.
view of the (supra), the 2025 is bad uestion as to ase, the re-
March 2025
Act 1961 is the Hon'ble sment Year
Notice under on 5th April herefore, the ght to have on made by the Ld.
the H paragr
Bansa the As dated 3
The brough Suprem Power 144/30 2025), as und “4 rev att de Ra 26 Ta pa : “1 as iss dro du Ta Am
. Additional Solicitor General of I
Hon'ble Supreme Court as r raph 190) of the decision rendere l (supra). This has clearly been ssessing Officer in the Assess
3rd March 2025. e learned Counsel for the Petition ht to our attention the decision of me Court in the case of Deepak
Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 ta
05 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369
wherein at paragraph 4 and 5
der :
4. The learned counsel appear venue with his usual fairness tention of this Court to a three j ecision of this Court in Union ajeev
Bansal
2024
SCC
O
693/[2024]
167
taxmann.com axman
238/469
ITR
46
( articularly, paragraph 19(f) which 9.(f) The Revenue concedes th sessment year
20152016, sued on or after April 2021 will opped as they will not fall for uring the period prescribed axation and other Laws (Rela mendment of Certain Provisions) A ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
17
Naresh Amratlal Shah
India before recorded in ed in Rajeev n missed by ment Order ner has also f the Hon'ble k Steel and axmann.com
(SC) (02-04- it was held ring for the invited the judge bench of India v.
OnLIne
SC m
70/301
(SC), more h reads thus hat for the all notices l have to be r completion under the axation and Act, 2020."
afo ye 1s the pe oth cer is the con
Similar
(Specia
2024],
Specia render
R.K. B
[2024]
Taxma
14414/
to the Court,
"D
Ha pe
Ind of 75
su
As the Revenue made a conces oresaid decision that is for the ar 2015-2016, all notices issued t April, 2021 will have to be ey would not fall for completion riod prescribed under the ta her laws (Relaxation and Am rtain Provisions Act, 2020). Not required to be adjudicated in th e notices so far as the present ncerned is dated 25.6.2021."
rly, in ITO v. R.K. Build Creati al Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy N the Hon'ble Supreme Court dis al Leave Petition arising out of red by the Hon'ble Rajastan Hi
Buildcreations (P) Ltd. v. Income
159 taxmann.com 475/462 IT an 166
(Rajasthan)/DBC
/2022. It would be equally relev said order passed by the Hon'b which is reproduced below:
elay condoned, aving regard to the concession m titioner Department in the case dia v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appe
2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 S
54), this Special Leave Petition urvive for further consideration.
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
18
Naresh Amratlal Shah ssion in the assessment d on or after dropped as n during the axation and endment of thing further is matter as litigation is ions (P) Ltd.
No. 59625 of smissed the f a decision igh Court in e-tax Officer
TR 478/298
WP
No.
vant to refer ble Supreme made by the of Union of eal No. 8629
CC ONLINE n would not He dis
Pe dis
Thus, reitera above issued
2021
droppe in the c
Ac Section 2022 w been d Suprem (supra) the pa 2022 u of the d 4.4 Similar view Delhi and Karnat Supreme Court [(2025) 174 taxm the learned DR o misplaced, as t ence, the Special Leave smissed. nding application (s), if any, sposed of." the Revenue has itself time ted before the Hon'ble Supreme cases that the Notice for re under Section 148 on or afte [in respect of A.Y. 201516] o ed as conceded in para 19(1) of case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). ccordingly, we hold that the N n 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 issued o was barred by limitation and ou dropped pursuant to the decision me Court in the case of Raj ). We also agree with the submis arties, that the Notice issued o under Section 148 is also bad in decision of this Court in Hexawa ws have been reiterated by t taka High Courts, as well as by in Deepak Steel and Power Lt mann.com 144 (SC)]. The relianc on paragraph 112 of Rajiv Bansa the said observations do not ITA No. 6142/MUM/25 19 Naresh Amratlal Shah Petition is shall stand and again Court in the eassessment er 1st April ought to be the decision Notice under on 5th April ught to have n of Hon'ble jeev Bansal ssion of both on 5th April law in view are (supra)” the Hon’ble the Hon’ble td. v. CBDT ce placed by al (supra) is t dilute or override the clea 2015-16. 4.5 In view of t Court in Rajiv B taken by the High the notice issue Assessment Year without juri ict proceedings initia 5. Since the re grounds, the othe not survive for ad 6. In the result Order pron
(RAJ KUMA
JUDICIA
Mumbai;
Dated: 24/12/20
Tarun, Sr. P.S..
Copy of the Ord
1. The Appellan
2. The Respond ar concession and ratio applica the binding judgment of the H ansal (supra), and the consiste h Courts and Coordinate Bench ed under section 148 dated r 2015-16 is barred by limitation tion. Consequently, the entire ated pursuant thereto are quash eassessment itself is annulled o er grounds raised by the assess djudication and are left open.
t, the appeal of the Assessee is a ounced in the open Court on 2 AR CHAUHAN)
(OM PRA
AL MEMBER
ACCOUNT
025
er forwarded to :
nt ent.
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
20
Naresh Amratlal Shah able to A.Y.
Hon’ble Supreme ent judicial view hes, we hold that 22.07.2022 for n and, therefore, e reassessment hed.
on juri ictional see on merits do allowed.
24/12/2025. AKASH KANT)
TANT MEMBER
CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mu 5. Guard file.
////
umbai
BY (Assistant R
ITAT
ITA No. 6142/MUM/25
21
Naresh Amratlal Shah
ORDER,