ARUN MOHANLAL PATEL,GHATKOPAR EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return within due date for filing return. The information was received by the Ld. AO related to the transaction of the immovable property in impugned assessment year. The Ld. AO issued the notice u/s. 148 on dated 12.04.2022. The assessee is in individual capacity filed the return on 09.07.2022 by declaring income amount to Rs. 1,93,960/- in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee had purchased residential house property from developer M/s. RNA Builders (N.G.) through agreement of sale dated 31.12.2014. The said agreement for sale entered, executed and registered for an aggrieved price of Rs. 90Lac. Finally, the reassessment was completed with a variation in respect of the issue of Rs. 90 Lacs for purchase of property from undisclosed source of income and added back with the total income u/s. 69 of the Act. The aggrieved assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the addition made by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.

The Ld. AR contended that notice issued by the Ld. AO u/sec. 148 on 12.04.2022 is barred by limitation. So, the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. On his argument, the Ld. AR submitted a chart of sequence of events which is reproduced as below: S. No. Description Date 1 Original Notice u/s 148 of IT Act, 1961 12.04.2022 2 Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of IT Act, 1961 10.01.2024

The Ld. AR contended that identical issue was duly considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Nilesh Haresh Parwani ITA 266/Mum/2025 and CO No.46/Mum/2025 date of order 24.04.2025. Relevant observations of the Bench in paragraph 12 to 14 are reproduced as below: “12. We further find that similar findings were rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in W.P.(C) No.17639 of 2022, vide order dated 13.12.2024. We find that in the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, on similar lines, re-assessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 were quashed: - • ACIT vs. Manish Financials, ITA No.5050 and 5055/Mum/2024 order dated 02.12.2024. • ITO vs. Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.4812/mum/2024, order dated 07.09.2024.

We further find that vide a recent order dated 04.04.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah, in SLP (C) Diary No.57209 of 2024, upheld the quashing of the re- assessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2015-16 considering the submissions of the Revenue as recorded in paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) of the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

Therefore, it is evident that the Hon'ble Courts, consistently considering the submissions made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), have held that the re-assessment notice issued under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Thus, on this limited basis alone, the notice dated 25.07.2022, issued under section 148 of the Act in the present case, is liable to be quashed, being time-barred under the provisions of the Act. We order accordingly. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed.”

The Ld. DR argued and stands in favor of the orders of revenue authorities.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The primary contention raised by the assessee is that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 12.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 is barred by limitation and, therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The assessee has placed on record the complete sequence of events along with the copies of notices, approvals and orders issued by the revenue authorities. We find that the identical issue relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Nilesh Haresh Parwani (supra), wherein the Coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70], the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 was barred by limitation and consequently quashed the reassessment proceedings. In the present case also, the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Act dated 12.04.2022 pertains to A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld. DR could not place any contrary decision or distinguishable facts on record to deviate from the view already taken by the Coordinate Bench. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and, consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act and the assessment order passed there under are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is hereby quashed. Since the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the preliminary legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, the grounds raised on merits have become academic in nature and, therefore, do not require separate adjudication. So, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.2863/Mum/2026 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th day of August 2026.