ACIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAGERIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, PALGHAR, MAHARASHTRA

The cross-objection was filed by the assessee challenging the very validity of the assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC).

Since the assessee has challenged the very validity of the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the consequential assessment as time-barred and bad in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), we first proceed to dispose off the cross-objection filed by the assessee.

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that originally the notice was issued on 23.06.2021 u/s 148 of the Act under the pre-amended regime and this was validated by virtue of the decision of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC). Subsequently, a notice was issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022, granting two weeks' time to furnish the reply. Learned counsel submitted that the reply was filed by the assessee on 07.06.2022 and after allowing a surviving period of 7 days, the last permissible date for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act was 15.06.2022. However, the notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 20.07.2022, which is placed at page 6 of the paper book. Therefore, the proceedings are barred by limitation by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra). Consequently, the assessment framed pursuant to such time-barred notice is also bad in law. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, reported in (2025) 174 taxmann.com 783 (Mumbai-Trib.).

Learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We have perused the material placed before us in the form of paper book. The sequence of events are as under:

The dates mentioned in the above table are matching with the notices issued u/s 148/148A(b)/148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, the final order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued u/s 148 are beyond the surviving period as specified in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, (supra).

Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we quash the notice issued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment framed for the assessment year 2014-15 based on such notice as bad in law. The cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed.

Since the reassessment framed pursuant to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is quashed, the appeal of the Revenue against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on merits becomes infructuous.

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous.