NIKUNJ MANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, सूरत न्यायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1204/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Nikunj Manubhai Patel, The ITO, Harihar Niwas Opp Radha Circle-2(3)(1), Krishna Mandir Gali, Surat बनाम/ Besides Bank of India Piplod, Vs. Surat (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ANTPP5072F Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026

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

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 22.10.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“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.

Page 1 of 9

2. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:

(i) The assessee-individual did not file any return of AY 2015-16.

(ii) The Ld. AO, on the basis of information available from Insight Portal of Income-tax Department revealing certain financial transactions undertaken by assessee, issued initial notice dated 30.06.2021 u/s 148 to make assessment 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 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 06.04.2022 u/s 148 to assessee for making assessment u/s 147 [after completing the procedure of section 148A(d)], which culminated into passing of an order of assessment dated 28.02.2024. By this order of assessment, the Ld. AO assessed assessee’s total income at Rs. 1,05,14,830/-.

(iii) Aggrieved by aforesaid order of assessment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine on the footing that the appeal was delayed by 203 days.

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

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in re-opening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the jurisdictional assessing officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148A(b) and order u/s. 148A(d) when it was actually required to be passed by Assessment Unit (NFAC). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 17,48,280/- u/s. 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 75,66,550/- on account of alleged Short term Capital Gain. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rs. 2,50,000/- + Rs. 9,50,000/-) u/s. 69A on account of alleged unexplained money.”

"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 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. 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 (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 06.04.2022. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid binding precedents, we hold that the impugned assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO in present case is hereby held to be bad in law and quashed. Ground No. 2 raised by assessee is thus allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 16/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

दिन ांक /Dated : 16.07.2026

* ak

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

Page 8 of 9

1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary, I.T.A.T., Surat

Page 9 of 9