GULAMMOHMAD HUSEN KHANSAHEB,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत �ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.43/SRT/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Gulammohmad Husen Income Tax Officer, Khansaheb, Ward -2(3)(6), Surat 12/671, Nr. Khatkiwad Income Tax Office, Room # 405, Masjid, बनाम/ Anavil Business Centre, Ranitalao, Vs. Pal-Hazira Road, Surat Adajan, Surat (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ADGPK2263A Assessee by Shri Suresh K Kabra, CA Revenue by Shri J.K. Chandnani, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026

O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department

Page 1 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal.

(i) The assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 45,65,360/- u/s 139 which was duly assessed.

(ii) Subsequently, on the basis of information in his possession emanating from Insight Portal of Income-tax Department revealing the receipt of on-moneys by assessee towards sale of certain properties, the AO issued initial notice dated 30.06.2021 u/s 148 to re-open assessee’s case u/s 147 on the strength of the time-limit extended by The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [“TOLA”]. Since a new set of provisions for re-assessment u/s 147 was introduced in Income-tax Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021, there arose controversies with regard to the issuance of notices u/s 148 after 01.04.2021 and the litigation travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave certain directions. Accordingly, after considering the decision of Ashish Agarwal, the Ld. AO issued a fresh notice dated 28.07.2022 u/s 148 to assessee for making assessment u/s 147 [after completing the procedure of section 148A(d)], which culminated into

Page 2 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb passing of an order of re-assessment dated 23.05.2023. By this order of re-assessment, the Ld. AO re-assessed assessee’s total income at Rs. 6,54,38,278/- after making a total addition of Rs. 6,08,72,918/- u/s 69A.

(iii) Aggrieved by aforesaid order of re-assessment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any relief.

(iv) Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

“The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not adjudicating the Ground, considering the Hon'ble SC decision in Rajeev Bansal with respect to notice u/s 148 issued during the April-June 2021 & interplay of TOLA-2020 and specific concession by ASG in respect of AY 2015-16. 2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of the Rs.6,08,72,918/- u/s.69A Income Tax Act, being ON MONEY and rejecting all arguments put forward by the Appellant.” 4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record.

Page 3 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb 46 (SC) that the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 shall have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under "TOLA". The relevant para 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal is re- produced below for an immediate reference:

"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 6. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that following the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has also quashed the notices issued by assessing authorities u/s 148 in (i) Mayur Kumar Babubhai Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2025) 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujrat) and (ii) Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF Vs. Income-tax Officer (2025) 179 taxmann.com 54 (Gujrat). The relevant paras of Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai are re-produced below:

“8. The matter was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) decided the issues raised with regard to delay as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act which has come into operation after 01.04.2021 as well as validity of sanction granted under section 155 of the Act. 9. During the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Apex Court, Revenue conceded to the effect that so far as Assessment Year 2015-2016 is concerned, Revenue could not have issued the notices under section 3(1) of TOLA as considering the time period as prescribed under section 149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are held to be invalid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court followed the decision of Rajeev Bansal(supra) in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC) and after recording the

Page 4 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb concession of the learned advocate for the department and in view of the concession given before the Apex Court by learned advocate appearing for the Revenue as recorded in para 19(f) of the judgment in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), has quashed and set aside the notice issued after 31.03.2021 under TOLA for A.Y. 2015-16 as under: "1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- "1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record. 2. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P.(C) No.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants(assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 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 notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.

Page 5 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside. 8. The relief in terms of prayer (a) is granted. 9. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of." 11. Similar orders are also passed by the Apex Court in the following cases: 1) Asstt. CIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 57209 OF 2024, dated 4-4-2025]; 2) ITO v. R.K.Build Creations (P.) Limited [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59625 OF 2024, DATED 17-1-2025]. 12. The Delhi High Court has also passed the similar order in following cases: 1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) 2) Lalit Gulati v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (Delhi); 13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision in case of Jay Jay Agro Industries v. ITO [CWP No. 7405 of 2025, dated 19-3-2025] 14. Rajasthan High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Shreyansh Mehta v. ITO [Civil Writ Petition No. 3299 of 2023, dated 12-2-2025]. 15. Karnataka High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Siddaiah Gurappaji v. Asstt. CIT [Writ Petition No. 20292 of 2023, dated 17-4-2025]. 16. This Court also in case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat)/Special Civil Application No.3154 of 2022 and allied matters) has held as under: "15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent-Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd(supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 2015-16, all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 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 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal

Page 6 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred." 17. In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015- 2016 is held to be invalid as same was issued during the extended period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under TOLA. 18. Petition is accordingly disposed off.” 7. Thus, we find that the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has recorded the Revenue's concession in para 19(f) that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are liable to be dropped. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel (supra) and Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF (supra), following Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel & Power Ltd., has held that notices issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Admittedly, in the present case, the original notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2021 and the consequential notice after the decision in Ashish Agarwal was issued on 28.07.2022. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid binding precedents, we hold that the impugned re-assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned re-assessment order passed by Ld. AO in present case is hereby held to be bad in law and quashed. Ground No. 1 raised by assessee is thus allowed.

Page 7 of 8

ITA No.43/SRT/2026 Gulammohmad Husen Khansaheb 8. As we have quashed the order of re-assessment itself, there is no necessity of adjudicating Ground No. 2 dealing with the merit of the addition made by AO; the same is kept open undecided.

Order pronounced in open court on 21/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

िदनांक /Dated : 21.07.2026

* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

Page 8 of 8