SANKALP DEVELOPERS,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2) KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3910/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2026AY 2015-163 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 under Section 148, issued on April 4, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessment for AY 2015-16 was reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148 on April 4, 2022. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on February 2, 2024.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on or after April 1, 2021, is time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 31.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.01.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/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.

ITA No.3910/MUM/2026 Sankalp Developers

2.

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 was reopened by issuance of notice dated 04.04.2022 u/s 148 of the Act and, pursuant thereto, the AO passed the assessment order dated 02.02.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

3.

We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the issue involved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/469 ITR 46 (SC) recorded the concession of the Revenue that, for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall within the period available under TOLA.

4.

The aforesaid position was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)/476 ITR 369 (SC). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mitra Biswas v. ITO, W.P.(L) No.3068 of 2026, decided on 03.02.2026 and, more recently, in Bhavik Bhupendra Shah v. ACIT & Ors., W.P. No.12482 of 2025, decided on 15.06.2026, has also held that where the notice u/s 148 pertains to A.Y. 2015-16 and has been issued on or after 01.04.2021, no further adjudicatory exercise is required and such notice is time-barred.

6.

Admittedly, in the instant case, notice u/s 148 was issued on 04.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid binding legal position, the notice dated 04.04.2022 is held to be barred by limitation and is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the assessment order dated 02.02.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom are also quashed.

ITA No.3910/MUM/2026 Sankalp Developers

7.

As the reassessment itself has been quashed, the remaining grounds raised by the Assessee on merits have become academic and, therefore, do not require adjudication.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. 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 →