SHAKUNTALA SINGH SENGAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5393/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2015-164 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 on 12.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was invalid and time-barred. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal and subsequent judgments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order for AY 2015-16. A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 12.04.2022. This notice was issued after the period available under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of a notice issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 after 01.04.2021, considering the limitations imposed by TOLA and Supreme Court pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,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 JAGADISH

For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur
Pronounced: 24.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 12.04.2022 and pertains to the A.Y. 2015- 16 and therefore question emerge about the fate of such notice, in view of judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein the Revenue through its ASG has conceded that, in respect of Assessment Year 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped, as they did not fall within the period available under TOLA.

3.

We further note that the aforesaid concession of the Revenue has duly been recorded in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4.

We further observe that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) was subsequently followed in Deepak Steel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax {(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)}, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"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 completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter, as the notice, so far as the present litigation is concerned, is dated 25.06.2021."

5.

We further observe that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court, in Mitra Biswas v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai [Writ Petition (L) No. 3068 of 2026, decided on 03.02.2026], also dealt with an identical issue involving notices dated 28.03.2022 issued under section 148A(b) and 14.04.2022 under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Hon’ble High Court while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel (supra), as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma v. 2 Income Tax Officer [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom.)], reiterated the settled legal position that, for Assessment Year 2015-16, any notice issued under section 148 of the Act on or after 01.04.2021 is invalid and barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act as well as all consequential proceedings and orders for Assessment Year 2015-16, by observing and holding as under:

“We thus find merit in the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act and all consequential Orders/Notices for A.Y.2015-16, are bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned Notice dated 14th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act (Exhibit 'D'), the Assessment Order (Exhibit 'H'), and all consequential orders/notices including recovery notices thereof are hereby quashed and set aside”. 9. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhavik Bhupendra Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [Writ Petition No.12482 of 2025, decided on 15.06.2026], have recently also dealt with identical notice under section 148 of the Act and held that notice u/s 148 of the Act having been issued on or after 01.04.2021 and pertains to the A.Y. 2015-16, then the notice is liable to be declared time- barred and no further adjudicatory exercise is required.

10.

Admittedly, in the present case, notice under section 148 was issued on 12.04.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16, beyond the period available under TOLA and hit by concession given by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the above case. Thus, the notice 12.04.2022 along with assessment order passed in pursuance thereto, is quashed.

11.

Resultantly, the remaining grounds raised by the Assessee on merits become academic, therefore, we deem it appropriate not to adjudicate the same, as such adjudication would be a futile exercise.

12.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH 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 →