BELINDA ANOTNETTA VERDES MORAES,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 506/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period, as per Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for AY 2015-16 under Section 147, issuing a notice under Section 148 on April 12, 2022. The assessee had not filed a return of income, and significant commodity exchange transactions were noted.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice for reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16, issued after April 1, 2021, was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita Nara,ARs
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 07.04.2026Pronounced: 07.05.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal emanating from the appellate order dated 24.12.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 26.03.2024 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2015-16 Belinda Anotnetta Verdes Moraes 3. In the only ground of appeal it stated that the Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment in spite of same is time barred.

4.

The appeal has been filed against the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act passed by the AO determining total income at Rs. 43,29,56,670/- as against the no return of income filed by it for A.Y. 2015-16. It was noticed by the AO that the assessee had not filed the Return of Income for AY 2015-16. As per the information available on record, the assessee had entered into a contracts of Rs.47,75,68,606/- and Rs.35,02,46,335/- totalling to Rs.82,78,14,941/- in a Commodities Exchange during the finance year under consideration. Since the assessee neither filed return of income nor furnished any explanation for these transactions even in response to the show-cause notice issued, the taxability of these amounts remained unexplained. The assessment order was passed ex- parte under section 147 r.w.s144 of the Act, due to the non-submission of the relevant documents called for during the course of the assessment proceedings.

5.

In the subsequent appeal, the assesee raised legal ground that the present appeal related to A.Y.2015-16. It is undisputed that the notice under Section 148 had been issued on 12th April 2022. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2015-16 Belinda Anotnetta Verdes Moraes Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal become relevant wherein the Department had conceded before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 had to be dropped. However, it is seen that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground and set aside the entire issue to the AO for de novo consideration and order since the assessment order was originally made u/s 144 of the Act.

6.

Before us, the ld.AR has contended that the at first notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 30/03/2022 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 12/04/2022. Considering the decision of Supreme Court in case of U.O.I. v/s Rajeev Bansal [301 ITR 236], it is clear that Department had conceded before Supreme Court that all the notices issued under section 148 after 01/04/2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 had to be dropped. Paragraph 19(f) of the said order reads as below:-

"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." 6.1 It is stated that the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) had been subsequently followed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169. Similarly, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court

P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2015-16 Belinda Anotnetta Verdes Moraes allowed the writ petition in case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma V. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward -1(1)(1), Mumbai ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433. 7. The ld.DR on the other hand claimed that case of the assessee was not covered by the cited decision in the case of Rajiv Bansal(SC). Moreover, the matter was already set aside to the AO for making fresh assessment de novo which was pending.

8.

We have carefully considered the relevant facts of the case.It is not in dispute that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in this case on 12.04.2022 and the assessment year involved is AY 2015-16. Therefore, ratio of the decision of the hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India India v. Rajiv Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)]squarely applies to the facts of the case. The limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions of section 148, as saved by the first proviso to section 149, expired on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued well beyond the permissible limitation. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or dropped, as P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2015-16 Belinda Anotnetta Verdes Moraes they would not fall after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further held that the extended year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, ten-year operates prospectively. It is undisputed that the six-year year limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022 and the notice under section 148 having been issued on 12.04.2022, is clearly barred by limitation. Further, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Virjinia Foods Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 179 taxmann.com 626 (Bom) has categorically held that notices issued for A.Y. 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 are invalid, taking note of the concession recorded by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal (supra). The issue also stands squarely Co ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench „B‟, in of the Co-ordinate the case of ACIT, Circle 19(1) v. Manish Financial, in ITA Nos. 5055 & 5050/Mum/2024, order dated 02.12.2024. 8.1 In view of the above discussion and the legal position emerging in this case, we deem it fit to hold that the impugned notice was barred by time limitation and therefore, the consequential assessment order also stand quashed being ab initio void, thus allowing the ground of appeal.

P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2015-16 Belinda Anotnetta Verdes Moraes 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2026. SAKTIJIT DEY PRABHASH SHANKAR (उपाध्यक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 07.05.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →