AKASH SHAH,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

There was delay of 23 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason for delay. It has been submitted that the appeal papers were duly signed within due date and the filing fee was also paid in time. Thereafter, the documents were

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.5,51,520/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee had obtained accommodation entry of Rs.19,35,900/- through the broker BMA Wealth Creators Ltd. and also given unsecured loan of Rs. 62,00,000/- to one entry operator Shri Jignesh Shah for obtaining bogus LTCG entry. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.05.2023 at total income of Rs. 86,87,420/-.

Aggrieved with the order passed of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

We will first take up the additional ground raised by the assessee, which is a legal ground and goes to the root of the matter. Shri Mehul Ranpura, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the reopening done in this case was bad in law as notice u/s. 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. He explained that the original notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 08.04.2021, which was within the extended time limit as per Taxation and Other Laws Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA). He has drawn our attention to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. CBDT, (174 taxmann.com 144) (SC)

Per Contra Shri Deependra Kumar, the Ld. SR-DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions of the assessee and perused the materials on record. The assessee has contended that reopening proceeding for A.Y. 2015-16 was barred by limitation and the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer was contrary in law in the light of binding decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, (167 taxamann.com 70) (SC) and Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra) as well as the judgement of Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Narendra Maganlal Purohit & Others (supra). There is no dispute in the fact that the original notice under Section 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 was issued in this case on 08.04.2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra) while deciding on the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 has held as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thus held that all notices issued on or after 1 April, 2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. Further, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts in H.A. Share and Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 176 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi) and Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma v. ΙΤΟ [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom.) respectively have applied the same principle: that any notice issued under section 148 or deemed to be issued under section 148A(b) for AY 2015- 16 after 01.04.2021 is void ab initio. The jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in Narendra Maganlal Purohit v. DCIT, (supra) has also followed the ratio of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and held that such notices are without authority of law.

In the present case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 was issued on 08.04.2021 i.e. after 01.04.2021. In view of the binding position of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the

Since the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of jurisdiction, we don’t deem it necessary to adjudicate the other grounds as taken by the assessee in this appeal.

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