Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Year:2015-2016)\nGamnaram Okhaji Prajapati\nRoom No.226, Ground Floor,\nSahara Shopping Centre, Siiddik Road, Musafirkhana\nMumbai - 400001. Maharashtra\n[PAN: BFTPP0328H]\nVs\nAppellant\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax\nCircle (1)(2)(1), Mumbai\nRoom No.535, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,\nMaharshi Karve Marg,\nMumbai - 400020. Maharashtra.\nRespondent\nAppearance\nFor the Appellant/Assessee\n: Shri Dinesh Shah\nFor the Respondent/Department : Shri Swapnil Choudhary\nDate\nConclusion of hearing\n: 22.12.2025\nPronouncement of order\n: 23.12.2025\nORDER\nPer Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:\n1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the\norder, dated 23/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal\nCentre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the CIT(A)']\nwhereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the\nAssessment Order, dated 24/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read\nwith Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2015-\n2016.\n2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :\n\
1. The Notice under section 148 under old regime was issued on\n10th May 2021 and notice under 148A(b) (under new regime is\nissued on 28/05/2022 and notice u/s.148A(d) as well as under\nsection 148 was issued on 22/7/2022 issued by Jurisdictional Dy\nCIT Circle 1(2)(1) Mumbai for the A.Y. 2015-16 is time barred\nand consequential reassessment order passed u/s.147 read\nwith section 144, rws 144B is invalid and be cancelled.\n2. As per the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.\nDeepak Steel and Powers Ltd. vis CBDT (2025) 476 ITR 369 i.e.\nany notice issued after 01.04.2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 is time\nbarred further the benefit of relaxation under TOLA Act, 2020 is\nnot available. Therefore the reassessment proceeding are barred\nby limitation and the assessment is liable to be declared null and\nvoid.\n3.1 The reassessment notices for the A.Y. 2015-16 i.e. notice u/s.\n148A(b) issued on 28/5/2022 i.e. notice u/s.148A(d) as well as\nnotice u/s.148 issued on 22.7.2022 by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer i.e. DY CIT Circle (1)(2)(1) Mr. H.S.Kelkar but as per\nsection AO 151A as well as per CBDT instruction dated 29.3.2022\nsuch notices are required to be issued by National Faceless\nAssessing Officer under the scheme framed by the CBDT and not\nby Jurisdictional Assessing officers.\n3.2 The re-assessment proceeding initiated and consequential\nreassessment proceeding initiated and consequential\nreassessment order passed u/s.147 rws 144B & 144 is invalid\nand be cancelled.\n4. The above view is confirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court in\ncase of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v/s. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR\n430 Bombay HC.\nThe reassessment initiated u/s.148A (b) 148A (d) & 148 and\nconsequentially re-assessment done u/s.147 rws 144 be\ndeclared null and void.\n5. The Learned CIT (A) NFAC erred in law by not declaring the\norder null and void despite the correct legal position having been\nspecifically brought to his notice. The order of AO was set aside.\nThe CIT (A) NFAC ought to have cancelled the reassessment\norder passed by the AO u/s.147 rws 144 rws 1448. The\nAppellant humbly prayed to the income tax appellant Tribunal to\nreassessment order passed u/s.147 rws 144 rws 144B be\ndeclared null and void without prejudice to other grounds of\nAppeal.\n6. Notice u/s.148 is invalid. The notice ought to have been issued\nunder section 153C of the IT Act, 1961.\n7. Prejudice to other grounds of Appeal. No addition can be done\nu/s.69A of IT Act, 1961 and question of applicability of section\n115BBE is not possible. The applicant is income is of business\nand commission service charges are already declared under the\nhead Income from Business.\n8. The Returned income of the appellant is Rs.2,85,020. Without\nprejudice to other grounds of appeal. The reassessment notice\nought to have been issued by the income tax officer and not by\nthe deputy commissioner of income. Thus notices and\nsubsequently assessment made is invalid and without\njurisdiction.\nInterest charged under section 234 and interest charged under\nsection 234B be deleted.\n3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised\nRepresentative for the Assessee had submitted that the Assessment\nOrder passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act\nwas bad in law since the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been\nissued for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 24/05/2023. Since the\nsaid notice has been issued after 01/04/2021, the same is without\njurisdiction and has to be withdrawn in light of the concession made\nby the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of\nIndia Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR
46. (SC). In support the\nLearned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed on record\nthe recent judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\nCherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma VS. Income-tax Officer,\nInternational Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com\n433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025] and\njudgment in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT\n(2025) 476 ITR 369.\n8.
1. The above legal plea made on behalf of the Assessee was opposed by\nthe Learned Departmental Representative. The Learned Departmental\nRepresentative vehemently contended that the judgment of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) had no\napplication to the facts of the present case since the notices under\nSection 148A/148 were issued in the present case under the new\nregime.\n8.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and\nhave perused the material on record including the judicial precedents\ncited during the course of hearing.\n8.
On perusal of Paragraph 6 to 12 of the judgment in the case of Rajeev\nBansal (supra) it becomes clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was\ndealing with cases where notices issued under Section 148 of the Act\nas applicable prior to amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021\n[for short 'the Old Regime'] between 1st April 2021 and 30th June\n2021 which were quashed by the various High Courts. The Hon'ble\nSupreme Court noted that in the case of Union of India v. Ashish\nAgarwal [2023] 1 SCC 617, exercising powers under Section 142 of\nthe Constitution, the Apex Court had directed that the reassessment\nnotices issued under Section 148 of the Old Regime shall be deemed\nto notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the New Regime [i.e.,\nSection 148/148A and other applicable provisions of the Act as\namended by the Finance Act, 2021]. The Assessing Officer, in\ncompliance with the aforesaid directions treated the notice issued\nunder Section 148 of the Old Regime as notice issued under Section\n148A(b) of the New Regime and passed order under Section 148A(d)\nof the Act. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the New Regime\nwas issued by the Assessing Officer Act between July and September,\n2022. In the aforesaid background following issues came had up for\nconsideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\n\"B. Issues\n18. The present batch of appeals gives rise to the following\nissues:\na. Whether TOLA and notifications issued under it will also\napply to reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021;\nand\nb. Whether the reassessment notices issued under section\n148 of the new regime between July and September 2022\nare valid.\"\n8.
While we find some merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the\nRevenue, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had\nplaced before us the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the\ncase of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax\nOfficer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179\ntaxmann.com 433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367\n(Bombay)[13-10-2025]. In that case in identical facts and\ncircumstances, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was pleased to accept\nidentical submission made by the Learned Authorised Representative\nappearing before us. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads\nas under:\n\"6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in\ndispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further,\nit is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been\nissued on 5th April 2022 which is at page 52 of the paperbook.\nOnce these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the\njudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev\nBansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:-\n19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor\nGeneral of India, made the following submissions on\nbehalf of the Revenue:-\na. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for\nre-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to\nSection 149 does not expressly bar the application of\nTOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-\ntax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new\nregime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is\nread with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1\nApril 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment\nyears 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017,\nand 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as\nexplained in the tabulation below:\nAssessment\nYear\nWithin 3\nYears\nExpiry of\nLimitation read\nwith TOLA for\n(2)\n(1)\n(3)\nWithin six\nYears\n(4)\nExpiry of\nLimitation read\nwith TOLA for\n(4)\n(5)\n2013-2014\n31-3-2017\nTOLA not\napplicable\n31-3-2020\n30-6-2021\n2014-2015\n31-3-2018\nTOLA not\n31-3-2021\n30-6-2021\napplicable\n2015-2016\n31-3-2019\nTOLA not\n31-3-2022\nTOLA not\napplicable\napplicable\n2016-2017\n31-3-2020\n30-6-2021\n31-3-2023\nTOLA not\n2017-2018\n31-3-2021\n30-6-2021\n31-3-2024\napplicable\nTOLA not\napplicable\ne. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year\n2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will\nhave to be dropped as they will not fall for completion\nduring the period prescribed under TOLA. “(emphasis\nsupplied)\n7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded\nbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued\nunder Section 148 after 1 April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be\ndropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is\ndated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.\n8. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently\nfollowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and\nPower Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is\nreproduced hereunder:-\n4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his\nusual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three\njudge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and\nOrs. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC\n2693, mare particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads\nthus:-\n\"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment\nyear 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April\n1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall\nfor completion during the period prescribed under\nthe Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and\nAmendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.\"\n5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid\ndecision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all\nnotices issued on or after 1st April. 2021 will have to be\ndropped as they would not fall for completion during the\nperiod prescribed under the taxation and other laws\n(Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act.\n2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this\nmatter as the notices so far as the present litigation is\nconcerned is dated 25.6.2021. (emphasis supplied)\n9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the\nHon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f)\nof the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the\nSLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is\nreproduced hereunder:-\n\"5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph\n19(e). and (1) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev\nBansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024\n(2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned\nAdditional Solicitor General for India has made a\nconcession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is\nconcerned.\"\n10. Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter\nof Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the\nPetitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section\n148 was issued after 1\" April 2021, the same was required to be\nset aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).\n11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions\nas canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically\nmade a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all\nnotices issued under Section 148 after 1" April 2021. Once this is\nthe position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148\ndated 5\" April 2022, and the consequential assessment order,\nnotice of demand. penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery\nnotices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.\n12. In light of this order, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing\non behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the Appeal\nfiled by him before the CIT (Appeals) within a period of 2 weeks\nfrom today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason,\nthe present order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside,\nthen the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals)\nwill automatically stand revived and the same shall be\nprosecuted on its own merits and in accordance with law.\"\n8.
It is also relevant to note that in the subsequent decision in Deepak\nSteel and Power Limited v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305\nTaxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025 decided\non 02/04/2025, the Supreme Court noted the concession made on\nbehalf of the Revenue in relation to reassessment proceedings\ninitiated for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 while allowing a batch of\npetitions holding as under:\n\"4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with\nhis usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to\na three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of\nIndia and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024\nSCC Online SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph\n19(f) which reads thus:-\n\"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the\n assessment year 2015-2016, all notices\nissued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to\nbe dropped as they will not fall for\ncompletion during the period prescribed\nunder the Taxation and other Laws\n(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain\nProvisions) Act, 2020.\"\n5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid\ndecision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016,\nall notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have\nto be dropped as they would not fall for completion\nduring the period prescribed under the Taxation and\nOther Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain\nProvisions) Act, 2020. Nothing further is required to\nbe adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as\nthe present litigation is concerned is dated\n25.6.2021.\n6. In view of the the aforesaid, in such circumstances\nreferred to above the original writ petition Nos.2446\nof 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively\nfiled before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands\nallowed.\"\n8.
We have noted hereinabove that in identical set of facts the\nJurisdictional High Court had quashed reassessment proceedings for\nthe Assessment Year 2015-2016 in the case of Cherian Nallathu\nAbraham Annamma (supra) and Deepak Steel and Power Limited\n(Supra) on the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Act was\nissued for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 after 01/04/2021 by\ntaking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Therefore, respectfully following\nthe same we accept the legal plea made on behalf of the Assessee\nand quash the notice, dated 22/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of\nthe Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 in the present case.\nFurther, the consequent assessment proceedings and the Assessment\nOrder, dated 24/05/2023, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 are\nalso quashed and therefore, the demand raised upon the Assessee for\nthe Assessment Year 2015-2016 stands deleted.\n4. In view of the above, Ground No. 1 to 2 raised by the Assessee are\nallowed while all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are\ndismissed as having been rendered infructuous.\n5. In result, in terms of paragraph 9 above, the present appeal is\nallowed.\nOrder pronounced on 23.12.2025.\nSd/-\n(Prabhash Shankar)\nAccountant Member\nमुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated :23.12.2025\nMilan, LDC\nSd/-\n(Rahul Chaudhary)\nJudicial Member\n9\nआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/