HEMLATA PARESH SURANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner submitted that the issue of concession made by the Ld. ASG in respect of A.Y.2015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case, came up for consideration before different High Courts where it is held that Notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 would be bad in law. In this regard he relied upon the following judgments: (a) ITO vs. Venkatlal Iyyappa Rajana [2025] 178 taxmann.com 410 (Karnataka) [05-08-2025] (b) Pratishtha Garg Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) [19-12-2024] (c) Lalit Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi) [02-05-2025].” 5. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities but was unable to rebut the submissions of the Ld. AR by citing any contrary judicial precedent. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the material available on record, and taken note of the judicial precedents. The assessee’s challenge is fundamentally on the jurisdictional ground namely, that the notice issued under section 148A(b) dated 25/07/2022 is void ab initio, being issued beyond the period of limitation for A.Y. 2015-16, and squarely covered by the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajiv Bansal (supra) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Verjinia Foods Ltd. (supra). The legal position that emerges from these authorities is unambiguous & all reassessment notices issued for A.Y. 2015-16 on or after 01/04/2021 are barred by limitation and must be dropped, as they do not fall within the extended period permissible under TOLA. The Hon’ble Bombay