VINOD RANCHHOD PATEL,JOGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

At the outset, it is observed that the impugned order is an ex-parte order, whereby the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the additions of ₹1,45,00,000/- on account of sale of immovable property and ₹10,62,002/- on account of credit card bill payments.

We have observed, as demonstrated by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee, that although the Assessee had mentioned the e-mail address vinod.rexstraut@gmail.com in Form No. 35, the Ld. Commissioner issued the notice under section 250 of the Act at a different e-mail address, namely piyushdesai@hotmail.com. Consequently, the notice was never received by the Assessee at the e-mail address furnished in Form No. 35, resulting in non-compliance during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner. Owing to the non-receipt of the notice, the Assessee could not place the relevant documents and submissions on record, and, consequently, the issues involved could not be adjudicated in their proper perspective.

Thus, considering the above peculiar facts and circumstances, and with a view to advancing substantial justice, we were initially inclined to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. However, we further observe that the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2015-16 and the notice dated 24-04-2022 under section 148 of the Act was issued by taking shelter under the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 ("TOLA").

Whereas, the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), itself 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.

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

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:

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 issued under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16.

Admittedly, in the present case, notice under section 148 was issued on 24.04.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16, which is 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 24.04.2022 along with assessment order passed in pursuance thereto, is quashed.

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed.