RAMAKANT RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1804/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ramakant Ramchandra Vs. ACIT CC 8(1), 656, 6th Jadhav, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 3200, 32 Floor, Plot No. 746 Maharishi Karve Road, D.S. Babrekar Marg, Vision Mumbai, Crest, Prabhadevi, Dadar Maharashtra- 400020 (West), Mumbai Maharashtra- 400028 PAN/GIR No. ACNPJ7192B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Mr. Tarang Mehta Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 12.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (NFAC) for the

2 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2026 Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav

assessment year 2015-16. The following grounds raised by the Assessee are reproduced below: i. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and void-ab- initio. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not holding that the consequential assessment order passed by AO u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. ii. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,48,604/- received over and above the surrender value of pension policy. iii. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT (A) in not holding the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as bad in law, illegal and void ab initio.

3 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2026 Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav

of which is at paper book No. 78 issued under Section 178 of the Act on account of income escapement in respect of premature withdrawal of Pension Policy held in the name of assessee with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 19,48,604/- being difference between the surrendered value and the amount invested in the pension policy over the years. Since the assessee has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings as time barred in terms of Section 149 of the Act, therefore, we evaluated the facts of the present case and the notice issued by the Department admittedly for the year under consideration. The notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before March 31st, 2021 but the said notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued on 29.07.2022. Thus is time barred in terms of Section 149 of the Act. The issue with regard to the limitation for issuing notice is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal 469 ITR 46 wherein the Department itself had conceded that all the notices issued for the year under consideration after April 1, 2021 are time barred as their completion does not fall within the period prescribed under TOLA. Moreover, the aforesaid decision has also/subsequently followed by

4 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2026 Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav

various High Courts and the Coordinate Benches of ITAT in cases as follows;

 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. DCIT (174 tasmann.com14),  Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Yaseen v. ITO (175 taxmann.com 280),  Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT (171 taxmann.com 264),  Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah [Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No. 57209/2024],  Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO v. R.K. Build Creations P. Ltd. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024],  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5177 of 2025),  Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Siddaiah Gurappaji v. ACIT and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 20292 of 2023,  Hon’ble Delhi high Court in Ibibo Group P. Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P.(C) 17639/2022],  Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ACIT v. Orbit Financial Capital and vice versa for A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA No. 5812/Mum/2024  Ramesh Dandumal Chanchlani v. ITO for A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA No. 4874/Mum/2024

5 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2026 Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav

Section 148 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. Therefore, the same stands quashed. 6. Since we have already quashed the notice for reopening and, therefore, the consequential orders passed also stands quashed thereto. Therefore, other grounds raised by the appellant requires no specific adjudication in view of our finding of ground No. 1. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed with no order as to cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/05/2026 Z.U., PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai