RAVINDRA KUMAR VISHWANATH YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2015-16
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.03.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) vide Assessment
Order 11.03.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144 B of the Act, has made the addition of Rs. 14,75,000/- being variation in respect of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.
The Assessee, thus being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, Mr. Ashwinkmar Krishnala Thanawala
2
could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee.
Thus, the Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal. The Assessee before this Court by filing an application for admission of legal ground, which was not raised before the authorities below, has claimed that notice dated 05.04.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act evidently is in contravention and violation of the applicable time bar as per limitation prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act and therefore, the said notice u/s. 148 is invalid and bad in law which vitiate the assessment proceedings and completion of re- assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144 B of the Act being without juri iction and bad in law.
As the issue raised by the Assessee is legal in nature and goes to the root of the cause, thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power
5. Coming to the merits of the ground raised by the Assessee, it is observed that the A.Y. involved in the instant case is 2015-16 and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 05.04.2022 which is claimed by the Assessee as time barred and in violation of the provision of Section 149 of the Act. This Court observe that identical notice dated 05.04.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act, has also been challenged before the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. Income Tax
Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
(Writ Petition (L) No. 32774 of 2025 decided on 13th
October, 2025), wherein the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court by considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mr. Ashwinkmar Krishnala Thanawala
3
Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) ultimately quashed such notice dated 5.12.2022 u/s 148 of the Act and consequently assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices, by observing and holding as under: -
“6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022 which is at page 52 of the paper book. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under: -
19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: - a.
……
e.
The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime.
The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years
2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015, 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below :
Assessment
Year
Within 3
Years
Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2)
Within six
Years
Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2013-2014
31-3-2017
TOLA not applicable
31-3-2020
30-6-2021
2014-2015
31-3-2018
TOLA not applicable
31-3-2021
30-6-2021
2015-2016
31-3-2019
TOLA not applicable
31-3-2022
TOLA not applicable
2016-2017
31-3-2020
30-6-2021
31-3-2023
TOLA not applicable
2017-2018
31-3-2021
30-6-2021
31-3-2024
TOLA not applicable f.
The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after
1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;"
From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5 th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.
The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- Mr. Ashwinkmar Krishnala Thanawala
4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:-
"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."
5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year
2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
"5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024
SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned."
10. Lastly, this very Bench has on 6 th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-
16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5th
April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.”
6. Thus, respectfully following dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rajiv Bansal case (supra) as has been followed by the Hon'ble Juri ictional High Court in the case referred to above, this Court is inclined to quash the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 5.04.2022, along with assessment order dated 11.03.2024, u/s.147, r.w.s. 144 and 144 B of the Act, thus, the same is quashed.
Mr. Ashwinkmar Krishnala Thanawala
5
7. As this Court has quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act and the Assessments order itself and therefore there is no purpose to adjudicate the appeal on merit.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Tarun, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.