SANDEEP LAXMAN KOKARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7609/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2026AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148/148A of the Act was barred by limitation. The reopening was not sustainable as the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case of a non-filer assessee for AY 2015-16 based on information about cash deposits, property purchase, and credit card payments. The AO made additions under Sections 69 and 69A, which were upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148/148A was issued within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik Chheda
For Respondent: Shri Rajgopal K Parthasarthy
Hearing: 09/09/2026Pronounced: 09/09/2026

PER JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT :

By this appeal, the appellant-assessee is challenging order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (‘CIT(A)’ for short), which in turn arose out of order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) for assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The brief facts are that the appellant is a non-filer for the year under consideration. The AO had received information that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,84,650/- in the savings account on 31.03.2015 and purchased immoveable property for Rs.45,00,000/- and there was a payment of Rs.6,93,655/- against credit card bills on the same day. On the basis of said information, the case was sought to

2 ITA No. 7609/Mum/2026 Sandeep L. Kokare be reopened. The AO recorded reasons, copy of which was supplied to the appellant. The appellant raised objection to the reopening. The AO passed order dated 13.04.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) followed by notice under Section 148 of the Act of even date. In the assessment proceedings, the impugned addition of Rs.65,78,305/- has been made by the AO under Section 69 and 69A of the Act, which order has been confirmed in appeal, which is the subject matter of challenge herein.

3.

We have heard parties. Perused record.

4.

The learned AR submitted that the impugned notice under Section 148/148A of the Act is bad in law, for which reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46 (SC). It is submitted that the Revenue has made a specific concession in that regard in the cases arising for assessment year 2015- 16 and thereafter.

5.

The learned DR, in all fairness, submitted that appropriate order be passed.

6.

We have considered the submissions made. A co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal to which one of us is a party (Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, President) in Babu Hasan Shaikh, ITA No. 926/Mum/2025 dated 28.04.2025 in similar circumstances has held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 (which in that case was issued on 18.04.2022) was barred by limitation. The following observations in para 8 and 9 are to the point :-

“8. The time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act was revised with effect from 01.04.2021 and the legislature in order to make the amendment prospective introduced the first proviso to section 149(1). The intent of the first proviso is that the revenue does not get the extended time of ten years where the notices were not issued within a period of six years for AYs prior to 2021-22. The said legislative intent has been clearly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

3 ITA No. 7609/Mum/2026 Sandeep L. Kokare of UOI vs Rajiv Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). The relevant of observations of the Apex Court is extracted below –

“46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.

47.

****

48.

Notices have to be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April 2021, the time limits prescribed under the new regime came into force. The ordinary time limit of four years was reduced to three years. Therefore, in all situations, reassessment notices could be issued under the new regime if not more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. For example, for assessment year 2018-2019, the four year period would have expired on 31 March 2023 under the old regime. However, if the notice is issued after 1 April 2021, the three year time limit prescribed under the new regime will be applicable. The three year time limit will expire on 31 March 2022.

49.

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.

4 ITA No. 7609/Mum/2026 Sandeep L. Kokare

50.

to 52. ***

53.

The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.”

9.

From the perusal of the legislative intent of the first proviso to section 149(1) as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that Revenue can not issue notice under section 148 for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22 if six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired on the date of issue of such notice. In the light of the above legal position we will now examine the facts in assessee's case. The year under consideration here is AY 2015-16 and therefore the time limit as per the first proviso is applicable. Therefore the time limit as per the old regime, for issue of notice for AY 2015-16 under section 148 of the Act six years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 31.03.2022. Accordingly the notice dated 18.04.2022 issued in assessee's case beyond the time limit and not valid.”

7.

It is not necessary to dilate any further as on the basis of the record and the date on which the notice is issued itself, the reopening cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned additions stand deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT

Mumbai; Dated : 09.09.2026 SSL

5 ITA No. 7609/Mum/2026 Sandeep L. Kokare

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The PCIT/CIT concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →