MANGALA DILIP SHEWALE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mangala Dilip Shewale, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Nashik. 12, Bhavik Apartment, Near Prasad Mangal, Karyalaya, Gangapur Road, Nashik- 422013. PAN : BITPS5562D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by Shri Rajesh Gawali : Date of hearing : 11.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 for AY 2015-16, without appreciating the first proviso to section 149 which restricts the reopening as per the old provision of section 147 and therefore the reopening made u's 147 is time barred and consequential orders are bad in law.

2 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025

3 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 the reopening proceedings have been initiated under the new reassessment regime by issuing notice u/s 148A(b) of the IT Act on 21-03-2022 to explain why a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act be not issued. Since the assessee did not file any reply to the above notice an order dated 04.04.2022 was passed u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act and subsequently a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 05.04.2022. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her Return of Income for AY 2015-16 on 02/05/2022 declaring total income of Rs.30,600/- under the head “Income from other sources” & claimed refund of Rs.3,060/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the IT Act along with show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. As per the available details, assessee had mentioned in the Return of Income an amount of Rs.57,00,000/- as "Exempt Income only for reporting purposes". Further, vide her reply dated 26.06.2023, assessee has submitted that she received Rs.57,00,000/- from her relative [ Real brother ] as gift. Subsequently, assessee was asked to submit details and sources of the gift, for which the assessee had not responded. Hence, the source of investment of Rs.57,05,000/- towards purchase of immovable property by the assessee, during the year

4 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 under consideration, remains unexplained. Therefore, the amount of Rs.57,05,000/- invested by the assessee to purchase the above mentioned property was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and was added back to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, vide order dated 14.03.2024 the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.57,35,600/- as against the income of Rs.30,600/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.57,05,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act in purchase of flat. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that her real brother, Shri Kailas Uttam Jadhav has gifted her Rs.57 lakhs through banking channels and this amount was utilized by her for making payment of the flat i.e. the impugned property. It was also submitted by the assessee that her own brother Shri Kailas Uttam Jadhav received the above amount on maturity of National Highway Authority of India bonds. It was also contended that her brother is covered in the category of relative as per the provisions

5 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 of section 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act, hence the above amount is not taxable. However, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not accept the above contention of the assessee, since according to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has not furnished the details with regard to the person claimed to be brother of the assessee and also not furnished details with regard to maturity of bonds etc. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. With regard to legal ground no.1 & 2, Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assesse, placed heavy reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Selvakumar Vethamonickam Nadar (2016) 182 taxmann.com 683 (Bombay) wherein Hon’ble Court by relying on the concession given by Ld. ASG before Hon’ble Supreme Court during the hearing of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal case [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) that “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

6 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 Provisions Act, 2020)” quashed the notice dated 23.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act and also quashed the consequential assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. counsel of the assessee requested before the bench to quash the impugned notice dated 05.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act and also requested to quash the consequential assessment order as well as first appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue submitted before us that the concession made by Ld. ASG before Hon’ble Supreme Court during the hearing of case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) was with regard to old regime notices for assessment year 2015-16 u/s 148 of the IT Act which were issued during 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 since TOLA was not applicable to them. Ld. DR also submitted before the bench that in the instant case in hand the impugned notice dated 05.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued under the new regime which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and therefore has nothing to do either with TOLA period or with the concession made by Ld. ASG before Hon’ble Apex Court which was obviously with regard to notices issued under the old regime. Ld.

7 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 DR reiterated that in the case in hand the notice u/s 148 was not issued by claiming the benefit of TOLA period rather it was issued under the new regime by following the procedure provided u/s 148A(b) and after passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted that under the new regime i.e. w.e.f. 01-04- 2021 to compute the period of limitation as per section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act the time provided to the assesse to reply to notice u/s 148A(b) is required to be excluded in the light of 3rd proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act. Ld. DR accordingly submitted before the bench to dismiss the appeal filed by the assesse. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee and the written submission furnished by Ld. DR. In this regard, we find that Ld. DR could not bring any judgement of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in its favour, & on the other hand, we find that Ld. AR in support of its contentions with regard to Ground no.1 & 2 has placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Selvakumar Vethamonickam Nadar (2016) 182 taxmann.com 683 (Bombay) wherein Hon’ble Court by

8 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 relying on the concession given by Ld. ASG before Hon’ble Supreme Court during the hearing of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal case (supra) quashed the notice dated 23.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act for Asstt Year 2015-16 and also quashed the consequential assessment order by observing as under :- “7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 23rd April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped. 8. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 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(1) 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. (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the

9 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "5- In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) n the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the Learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned." 10. Lastly, this very Bench on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Verjinia Foods Ltd. (supra), has allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal ( supra). 11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 23rd April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.” 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and respectfully following the judgement passed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Selvakumar Vethamonickam Nadar (supra) which is binding on us, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and quash the impugned notice dated 05-04-2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act & also quash the consequential assessment order dated 14-03-2024 & accordingly allow the ground no.1 & 2 raised by the assessee. Since we have allowed the appeal on ground no.1 & 2

10 ITA No.2504/PUN/2025 raised by the assessee, ground no.3 involving the merits of the case becomes academic, hence not adjudicated by us. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 08th day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 08th June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.06.09 11:35:47 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.