DILIP GANGARAM BHANDARE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 8(1), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), it be kindly held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is time barred and has been issued beyond the statutory time period. Accordingly, the Assessment Proceedings so initiated be kindly held to be invalid and be kindly quashed.

Ld. AR filed a paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is bad in law. The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: i. Mitra Biswas Vs. ITO Mumbai WP No. 3068 of 2026 (Bom HC). ii. Bhoomi Viral Shah Vs. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 682 (Bombay). iii. Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle 8 283/PUN/2023. iv. NTPC v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). v. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd v. ITAT & Ors [WP No. 3508 OF 2018]. vi. CIT v. Mohd. Ayyub & Sons Agency [1992] 197 ITR 637 (Allahabad).

The Ld. DR submitted that the concession made by Revenue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46 (SC) was only pertaining to notices issued during TOLA period. The Ld. DR submitted that hence the concession made before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the case of the assessee as notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 22.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 which is within the statutory time limit. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shailendra Nath Rai Vs. ACIT, (2026) 187 taxmann.com 14

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Both the parties have argued only on the legal ground of validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The basic facts are as under : Notice u/s 148A(b) 22.03.2022 Order u/s 148A(d) 05.04.2022 Notice u/s 148 06.04.2022

Thus, in the case of the assessee, notice u/s 148 has been issued on 06.04.2022. The validity of notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 was considered by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mitra Biswas Vs. ITO, Writ Petition (L) No. 3068 Of 2026 has held as under : Quote, “3. Brief facts of the case are that a Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued on 28thMarch 2022 alleging that an immovable property acquired by the Petitioner revealed that income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset had escaped assessment. The Petitioner was asked to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued to her. The Petitioner claims that she was unable to respond to the Show Cause Notice as she was completely unaware about initiation of such proceedings. Thereafter, an order dated 14thApril 2022was passed under Section 148A(d) holding that Petitioner's case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for A.Y.2015-16. Accordingly, the impugned Notice dated 14th April 2022came to be issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the IT Act by Respondent No.1. ………………….. …………………

In the case of Mitra Biswas (supra) notice u/s 148A(b) was dated 28.03.2022 and notice u/s 148 was dated 14.04.2022. Therefore the facts in the case of the assessee and the facts in the case of Mitra Biswas are absolutely identical.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “ 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 v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), 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 April1, 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

Similarly, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO (IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“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 148dated 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.” Unquote.

The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in the case of Anil Ramchandra Pawar vs ITO, ITA No.1929/PUN/2025 held as under : Quote, “15. In view of the factual matrix of the case and legal position set out above and in the absence of any contrary material/judicial precedent brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the impugned notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic in nature and therefore not adjudicated. ”Unquote.

The Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (supra). However, in the case of Shailendra Nath Rai

Similarly, the relevant paragraphs of the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Bhalla (supra) are reproduced here as under : Quote, “6. On the anvil of above principles, if the facts of the present case are tested, according to us, the proceedings are well within the period of limitation inasmuch as the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 was issued on 28.03.2024, in response whereof, the

Thus, the issue before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court was regarding surviving time. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in above referred cases has adjudicated the issue of surviving time. Hence, these decisions are distinguishable on question of facts and question of law. Therefore, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court decisions relied by the Ld. DR are not applicable to the facts of the present case in hand.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully following the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court (supra) and the decision of ITAT (supra), we hold that notice u/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is bad in law. Accordingly, the consequential assessment order is void-ab-initio. In the result, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

The grounds raised on merits of the addition are dismissed un-adjudicated as we have allowed the legal ground of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.