ARIF SHAIKH,THANE vs. ITO, WD-2(1), THANE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE & MISS. PADMAVATHY S
Per Shri Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2015-16, date of order 09/12/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for brevity, the “Ld.AO”) passed u/s147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 16/02/2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 04/04/2022. The assessment was completed with addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act amount to Rs.39,12,500/-, undisclosed contractual receipt – Rs.3,63,510/-, unexplained money amount to Rs.46,74,748/- and unexplained investment u/s 69 amount to Rs.14,88,445/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and challenged the order of the Ld.AO. The assessee raised grounds, both on legality as well as merit of the case before the Ld.CIT(A). Finally, the appeal order was passed and the appeal was allowed for statistical purpose due to exparte order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 144 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee failed an appeal before us by challenging the juri iction of the Ld. AO for issuance notice U/s 148 of the Act, before us.
The Registry has reported that the appeal was filed with a delay of six months and twenty days. The assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay, accompanied by an affidavit duly executed on 30.08.2025 by the assessee himself, wherein the reasons for the delay have been duly explained. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay of six months and twenty days. Upon due consideration, we find that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of six months and twenty days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Ld. AR filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 48, which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR first drew our attention to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, placed at page 1 of the APB. The said notice was issued on 04.04.2022 by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR contended that the said notice is barred by limitation, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “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.”
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the findings of the revenue authorities and relied upon the orders passed by them.
We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the notice under section 148 was issued on 04.04.2022. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal (supra), we hold that any notice issued after 01.04.2022 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the said notice is invalid in law, and therefore, the impugned reassessment order, being founded on such an invalid notice, has no legal sanctity and is hereby quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.5469/Mum/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November 2025 (PADMAVATHY S) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 10/11/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपीलाथŎ/The Appellant , 2. Ůितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ CIT 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. गाडŊ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.