SACHIN HANUMANT MACHALE,SHINDAVANE, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD14(3), PUNE, SALISBURY PARK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 761/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 August 2026AY 2015-1617 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, making the reassessment proceedings void. The Tribunal also found that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits with supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, had cash deposits in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, issuing a notice under Section 148. The assessee argued that the notice was time-barred and that the deposits were explained by agricultural income and prior withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was time-barred, and whether the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was acceptable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2015-16 on 01.01.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 15.03.2024.

Submission of Ld. AR :

2.

The Ld. AR filed paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was issued on 10.04.2022 hence it is time barred. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, Pune enclosed in the paper book. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and had never filed return of income. The assessee has 16 Acres of land. During the

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026 proceedings, the assessee submitted elaborate submission before the Assessing Officer (AO) and explained that the entire cash deposits partly pertain to re-deposits of withdrawal and agricultural income. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the chart filed before the AO to explain the withdrawals and re- deposit of cash. The chart is at page Nos. 11-14 of the paper book. The Ld. AR also submitted that during assessment proceedings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had made elaborate submission. The assessee filed 7/12 extract to demonstrate that the assessee is an agriculturist and had non- agricultural income.

2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the AO has rejected assessee‟s explanation on the ground that the assessee has not maintained books of account. However, being agriculturist, the assessee is not required to maintain books of account. Therefore, assessment order is devoid of any merits. Being an agriculturist, the 7/12 extract is proof of agricultural activities. The Ld. AR also submitted that the details of crops grown during the period which has been reproduced by the AO in the assessment order at page No. 7. The Ld. AR therefore, submitted that addition may be deleted.

Submission of Ld. DR :

3.

The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the contention of the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under : “Subject: Submission of Synopsis of the Revenue's argument in above mentioned case - reg. A written submission on the additional ground submitted by assessee in hearing dt 21.07.26 and adjourned to 23/07/26 for decision, again filed by the assessee on 22.07.2026. At the first instance, on Ground No.2, about JAO-FAO issue, through the Finance Act, 2026, Parliament introduced Section 147A with retrospective

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

effect from April 1, 2021. This amendment explicitly validates the power of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue reassessment notices. Moreover, the provisions of section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 prohibits assessee from raising the jurisdictional issue before Hon'ble bench after lapse of considerable time. 2. As regards, the Additional ground 1 is revised by the assessee and filed on 22.07.2026 is as below:-

'On the facts and circumstances of the case the notice issued under section 148 dated 06.04.2022 was beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149(1). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such notice are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

At the outset it is requested to dismiss the additional grounds raised by the assessee, as the same were not raised before lower authority. Without waiving revenue's right to oppose additional ground filed at admission stage, the submission w.r.t issue of validity of notice u/s 148 for AY 2015- 16 is submitted and the same may kindly be considered.

Facts of the case

The assessee is a individual and no return of Income for AY 2015-16 has been filed by the assessee. As per the information in the possession of the AO, high value transactions were carried out by the assessee during FY 2014-15. In view of this information, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 23.03.2022 and allowed the assessee time till 30.03.2022 to respond. However, assessee failed to respond and AO passed order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 on 06.04.2022. The order u/s 147 rws 144B was passed on 11.03.2024 determining total income at Rs.54,05,000/-.

3.

DECISION OF CIT(A)

Since the additional ground no. 1 & 2 was not made before Ld. CIT(A), no adjudication was done on the issue of validity of 148 notice.

Appeal before Hon.ITAT

4.

The additional ground no. 1, preferred by the assessee before the Hon.ITAT is that the notice u/s 148 issued on 06.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was time barred. However, it is to be submitted that if the time provided for replying to notice u/s 148A(b) as per fifth proviso to section 149(1) is applied, then the notice u/s 148 is well within the statutory limitation ie.31.03.2022 The following arguments being made which may be considered along with the arguments during the hearing.

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

Is notice u/s 148 issued in case of assessee is hit by 1st proviso to Section 149(1)?

5.1 As per the first proviso to section 149(1) of the new regime, no notice shall be issued for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being time-barred as per clause (b) of 149(1) of the old regime (Reassessment provisions as applicable before 01.04.2021). Under the old regime, notice u/s 148 could be issued for up to 6 years. Thus, for AY 2015-16, the time available for issuing notice u/s 148, as per old law, was till 31.03.2022. Therefore, as per the new section 149(1) rws first proviso to section 149(1), the time- barring for AY 2015-16 was 31.03.2022, if the escaped income was more than Rs.50 Lakhs. In the case of the assessee, the escaped income was more than Rs. 50 lakhs and therefore, time limit to issue the notice was 31.03.2022. The AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 23.03.2022 and allowed the assessee time till 30.03.2022 to respond. However, assessee failed to respond and AO passed order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 on 06.04.2022. As per the fifth proviso to section 149 (1)(b),

Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded:

Thus, after exclusion of 7 days which were allowed to the assessee, as per notice u/s 148A(b), the notice u/s 148 was within 31.03.2022. Therefore, the AO has rightly issued notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 on 06.04.2022. After excluding the period of 7 days provided to the assessee for replying to the notice u/s 148A(b), legally notice u/s 148 was issued before 31.03.2022 ie within the time limit prescribed u/s 149 after exclusion of the period allowed to the assessee under notice u/s 148A(b).

Is notice u/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 in the case of assessee valid under new regime ?

5.2 The notice u/s 148 was issued on 06.04.2022. Therefore, it was case of reassessment beyond the three year period. So, it had to qualify the test of section 149(1)(b). Therefore, following conditions needed to be fulfilled

a. Amount of escapement of income is more than 50 Lakhs

b. Sanctioning authority should be PCCIT.

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

Further, the procedure prescribed in section 148A needed to be followed. In the case of the assessee, the escapement of income is more than 50 Lakhs and sanctioning authority is PCCIT, Pune. Further, notices u/s 148(b) was issued on 23.03.2022. Order u/s 148(d) was passed on 06.04.2022. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 was issued on 06.04.2022 and after applying time exclusion as per fifth proviso, it was deemed to be within 31.03.2022. Thus, it is a valid notice as per section 149(1)(b) rws first and fifth proviso.

Does first proviso gets precedence over the fifth proviso ?

5.3 It is necessary to look into the purpose of use of "Proviso" in legal drafting. A proviso to a section or sub-section is a legal clause that begins with the words "Provided that...". Its primary purpose is to qualify, exclude, limit, or create an exception to the main, general enactment, taking out of it a specific situation that would otherwise fall within its scope. For eg. In case of new amended section 149(1), the first proviso to new section 149(1) restricts the time period for issuing reassessment notices for AY 21-22 and earlier AYrs by linking it to time limits prescribed under the old Section 149 (un-amended) and does not allow the benefit of extended time limits under new law. For eg. though a notice u/s 148 is issued in say, January 2022 and new section 149(1) allows reassessment upto ten years, no notice u/s148 can be issued for say AY 2012-13 in January, 2022. This is due to the first to proviso to new section 149(1) which limits reassessment as per old section 149(1) where the time limit up to 6 years was prescribed. Thus, we see that first proviso limits or qualifies or excepts the time limits given in the main sub-section (1).

5.3.1 Now, let us see what purpose 5th proviso to section 149(1) serves. The relevant proviso is reproduced below

Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (6) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded:

The proviso starts with the words " that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section". Thus, it is evident that while computing the period of limitation of three years or ten years, the time excluded as per this proviso should be considered. This proviso excludes the time allowed to the assessee as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order of any court. Thus, this proviso stops the clock of limitation at the moment stay/injunction/notice u/s 148A(b) is issued and restarts only when

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

stay/injunction is lifted or time allowed as per notice u/s 148A(b) ends. Thus, this proviso excludes certain mandated time in special cases, creating an exception to time lines as per main sub-section.

5.4 It is a trite law that section as a whole should be read together and not in parts. No one proviso should be considered having primacy over the other. The doctrine of harmonious construction is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation used to resolve conflicts between different provisions of a statute or between multiple statutes. It mandates that seemingly contradictory provisions should be interpreted to give effect to both, ensuring that no provision is rendered useless or dead, as the legislature is presumed not to create inconsistencies. Provisions must not be read in isolation but as part of the entire statute, aligning with the overall legislative intent.

Further support is available from the Delhi High Court in BKR Capital (P.) Ltd. [2026] 187 taxmann.com 10.The SLP filed by the assessee is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case as reported in [2026]187 taxmann.com 10739SC) dt. 29.05.26. In paragraph 12 of the High Court order, the Revenue's written submission, which was expressly noticed by the Court, argued that section 149(1) must be read as one composite limitation framework. The First Proviso cannot be interpreted in isolation from the Fifth Proviso providing exclusion of time. The Court accepted this approach and held that the first proviso merely prevents retrospective enlargement of limitation and does not override the statutory exclusion mechanism. Accordingly, where proceedings under section 148A(b) are initiated within limitation, the period allowed to the assessee must be excluded while computing limitation. An interpretation rendering the exclusion proviso otiose is impermissible.

Provision for benefit of Taxpayer

5.5 New reassessment regime was brought in to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers and bring in transparency in the reassessment proceedings. Hence, new section 148A was introduced where in opportunity is given under section 148A(b) to the taxpayer of being heard in respect of the information in the possession of the department. It is in this context the fifth proviso excludes the time or the extended time allowed u/s 148A(b) notice. This is beneficial provision and in the interest of the transparency. Treating this proviso as redundant does not serve any purpose

New Machinery after 01.04.2021

5.6 It is pertinent to note that Supreme Court in various decisions and most famously in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022]444ITR1(SC) has stated that after 01.04.2021, the procedure for reassessment

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

should be the new regime brought in by the FA 2021. Now, as per first proviso to section 149(1) of the new regime, as on 01.04.2021, the AY 15-16 was "live year or actionable year" ie the farthest department can go back and reassess, provided other conditions such quantum of escapement etc. are satisfied. Hence, after 01.04.2021, for initiating reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, new machinery of reassessment such as section 148A had to be used. This will include notices u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) etc. Now, when these sections are to be given full effect all relevant provisions related to these sections have to be considered. The fifth proviso to section 149(1) provides exclusion of time or extended time allowed to the assessee to reply to notice u/s 148A(b). To ignore this proviso would be curtail the operation of the section 148A.

5.6.1 Once the first proviso is satisfied (i.e., the year was "actionable" on 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16), the computation of the actual date of expiry for that "actionable" year must be done in accordance with the current statutory framework, which includes the provisions of section 148A and fifth proviso to section 149(1). To hold otherwise would be to suggest that for any year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, the Revenue must comply with the new Section 148A (natural justice) but is denied the time-exclusion benefits under fifth proviso to specifically provided to facilitate that compliance. This would create a legislative absurdity where the Revenue is burdened with more procedures but stripped of the time to complete them. It can also be argued that if the machinery of the old regime was used for AY 2015-16 then notice u/s 148 would have been well within time as it is compliance with section 148A procedures which had necessitated extra time.

Impinges on powers of Judiciary

5.6.2 The subordination of the fifth proviso to the first proviso also results in impinging on the powers of judiciary. This proviso excludes the time allowed to the assessee as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order of any court. Thus, this proviso stops the clock of limitation at the moment stay/injunction is granted and restarts only when stay/injunction is lifted. Now, let us suppose a scenario when fifth proviso is rendered un- operational. Suppose notice u/s 148(b) for AY 2015-16 is issued on 10.03.2022 and assessee files writ against the notice in High Court. High Court grants stay on 15.03.2022. The stay is vacated on 07.04.2022 and writ is dismissed. Then will the reassessment proceedings be barred by limitation as the time barring date was 31.03.2022? This scenario leaves revenue with no recourse. It also impinges on the powers of the judiciary. This surely is not the intention of the legislature. The courts should prefer an interpretation that makes a statute effective, operative, and functional rather than

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

one that defeats its purpose or renders it meaningless. Harmonious construction of the new reassessment regime is necessary as it was brought in to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers and bring in transparency in the reassessment proceedings.

Decision of Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies

6.

First proviso to sec. 149(1) restricts the time limit for issuing notice u/s 148 for AYrs before AY2022-23. Whereas the purpose of fifth proviso is to see whether the notice u/s 148 is as per time limit as per section 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b). Both have different purposes. Hence, in the first instance, fifth proviso should be applied to see whether it falls under three year or ten year category. Once, that is done, then it is to be seen whether the notice u/s 148, after exclusion of time, passes the test of first proviso. This interpretation has been upheld by the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)/[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (See Annexure-1). The relevant para 30 is reproduced here

30.

With respect to applicability of the fifth proviso and the sixth proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149(1) of the Act, i.e., three years or ten years, as the case may be. Fifth proviso or sixth proviso extend limitation for issuing notice under section 149 of the Act, however, the first proviso is an exception to the period of limitation and provides for a restriction on the notices under section 148 being issued for Assessment Years upto 2021-22 beyond a certain date. Therefore, the way the Section would operate, is first to decide whether a notice issued under section 148 of the Act is within the period of limitation in terms of Section 149(1)(a) or (b) of the Act. To decide whether the notice is within the period of limitation under section 149(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, the extension of time as per the fifth and/or sixth proviso would be considered. Once, the notice is otherwise within the period of limitation, thereafter one has to see whether the said time limit is within the restriction provided in the first proviso or not. If the notice is beyond the restriction period, the notice is invalid. (emphasis supplied)

Thus, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly mentioned how the section 149 has to be read. First exclusion provisos such as fifth and fourth (fifth/sixth in HC order as by FA 2023, three new provisos related search were introduced and fifth proviso became fifth proviso) and then the test of first proviso should be applied. Thus, in the case of the assessee, at first instance if the exclusion of fifth proviso is

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

applied then the notice is within 31.03.2022 and thus, passes the test of first proviso.

Conclusion :

The interpretation that views the first proviso as an overriding "veto" over the rest of the section goes against the established principles of law. The first proviso specifies that a notice cannot be i.ssued if it "could not have been issued at that time" under the old law. This phrase "at that time" refers to the limitation status as of 01.04.2021. Since AY 2015-16 was not barred as of 01.04.2021, the first proviso does not prohibit the issuance of the notice; it merely limits the Revenue's ability to use the new 10-year window for cases that were already dead under the 6-year window. To give primacy to the first proviso over the fifth proviso fails the test of harmonious interpretation. It also creates absurd situation where after 01.04.2021, the Revenue is expected to comply with the new Section 148A (natural justice) but is denied the time-exclusion benefits specifically provided to facilitate that compliance. The fifth proviso to Section 149(1) is essential to the working of the new assessment. Any interpretation which renders fifth proviso otiose is not as per the letter and spirit of the law. Lastly, the fifth proviso accommodates the Judicial intervention. The overruling of the fifth proviso may lead to unintended consequence of impinging on the scope of exercise of the powers by Constitutional courts. Further, the para 30 of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)/[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) supports the above contention of the Revenue.

7.1 The ratio of BKR Capital directly supports the Revenue case. In the present case also, notice under section 148A(b) was issued within the live period. After excluding the statutory period granted to the assessee under the fifth proviso to section 149(1), the notice under section 148 falls within limitation. This reasoning complements the Bombay High Court decision in Hexaware Technologies, both requiring harmonious construction of all provisos to section 149(1).

7.2 Thus, in view of the above, though the notice u/s 148 was issued on 10.04.2022, through the application of fifth proviso to section 149(1) is legally indistinguishable from a notice issued on or before 31.03.2022. In view of the above discussion, it is prayed that the reassessment proceedings may kindly be upheld.

Submitted for kind consideration.”

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026 Findings & Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2015-16. The AO received information on INSIGHT Portal regarding cash deposits. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 14A(b) of the Act dated 31.03.2022. The assessee failed to file any reply. Accordingly, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 10.04.2022 with the approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Copy of the order u/s 148A(d) is at page Nos. 43-46 of the paper book.

5.

The AO also issued notice u/s 148 dated 10.04.2022. The assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee filed elaborate submission regarding the cash deposit which has been reproduced by the AO in the assessment order. The details of land holding and crops grown by the assessee as appearing in the assessment order is as under :

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

6.

Finally, the AO held as under : “On being asked about the source of such cash deposit vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.01.2023, the assessee has stated that he was engaged in agricultural activity and part of the total cash deposited was generated out of the sale of crops. But when the assessee was further asked to furnish the details of the persons to whom the crops were sold vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.09.2023, the assessee has expressed his inability to furnish the desired details as he did not maintain any books of accounts during the year under consideration. So it cannot be verified from this end that a part of the cash deposited was truly generated out of the sale of crops. Further the assessee has stated that remaining part of the cash deposited was out of the cash in hand of the assessee. In further clarification the assessee has stated that he used to withdraw cash from the bank account and within a short period of time he deposited back the unutilized cash into the account. He has further stated that he used to maintain such practice only to create more transactions in the account for the purpose of increase his credibility before the bank to obtain loan, if required. But such clarification on the part of the assessee is not tenable because it is not at all clear whether the cash re-deposited was truly out of the cash in hand of the assessee or it was freshly generated cash from some source. In view of the discussion made above the entire cash deposited is proposed to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act.”

7.

The AO made addition of Rs.54,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal.

8.

In this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was issued on 10.04.2022. Ld. AR pleaded that the notice u/s 148 is bad in law. This issue has been considered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court.

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

9.

The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs ITO International tax ,[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025] has held as under : Quote, “11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. TheRevenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued underSection 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as wellas the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.” Unquote.

10.

The coordinate bench of ITAT Pune in the case of Motiwala Auto Private Limited vs ITO ITA 486/PUN/2025 vide order dated 9/12/25 held as under : Quote, “ 8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The assessee received the notice u/s 148 of the Act for the relevant AY 2015-16 under consideration on 25.07.2022 from the Ld. AO/JAO (page 6 of the paper book refers). Under the old provisions of section 149, which will be applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, the notice u/s 148 would not have been issued beyond the period of 6 years from end of the relevant assessment year. The period of 6 years from the AY 2015-16 laps on 31.03.2022. As stated earlier notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 25.07.2022 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under the said provisions of the Act. We find that the Revenue has also conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) that the provisions of Taxation and OtherLaws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is not applicable to the notices issued for AY 2015-16. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below : “19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that reassessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re- assessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1)

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

of TOLA apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.” Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime; e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, PART C including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014- 2015, 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: ……………. f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;…………….

11.

In the case of Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: “2. The above Writ Petition is filed to quash and set aside the Notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is A.Y.2015-16. As far as this assessment C) year is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) in paragraph 19(f) has recorded the concession made by the learned ASG that for the A.Y.2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 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. 3. Admittedly in the facts of the present case, the Notice issued under Section 148 is after 1st April 2021 (namely, on 28th July 2022). This being the case, we find that in the facts of the present case, the Notice issued under Section 148 dated 28th July 2022 would have to be dropped and cannot be proceeded with further. 4. We accordingly quash and set aside the said notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act.” 12. We also find the Pune Tribunal in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal (supra) in turn relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has taken a similar view on the impugned issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: “13. We find since the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued after

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

the statutory due date as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), therefore, such notice for reopening being barred by limitation has to be quashed. We accordingly, quash the reassessment notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground i.e. validity of re-assessment proceedings, therefore, the grounds challenging the addition on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.” 13. In view of the factual matrix of the case and legal position set out above and in the absence of any contrary material / judicial precedent brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the impugned notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Ground no. 1 (along with its sub-grounds 1.1 to 1.5) is accordingly allowed.” Unquote

11.

The Coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITD Cementation India Ltd vs DCIT Central [2025] 173 taxmann.com 492 (Mumbai - Trib.)[17-03-2025] held as under : Quote, “3.3. Thus, it can be seen that, one very important fact which has been stated by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 19 (f) wherein the Revenue concedes that for the A.Y.2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. 3.4. This issue had come up before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, WP(C) 17639 of 2022, dated 13.12.2024 wherein re-assessment action for Assessment Year 201516 was held to be not sustainable. Hon'ble Court quashed the notice issued u/s.148 as well as order passed u/s. 148A(d), dated 23.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 by following the decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 3.5. In the assessee's case, since the notice issued u/s.148 is dated 25.07.2022, a period of six years expired on 31.03.2022 and is thus barred by limitation. Accordingly, the notice so issued and assessment completed thereafter u/s. 147 is liable to be quashed, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) which was followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of IBIBO (supra). These observations and findings apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal in the case of ITD ITD Cem Joint Venture for Assessment Year 2015-16 in ITA No. 4620/Mum/2024 and 5232/Mum/2024.” Unquote.

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

12.

The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in the case of Anil Ramchandra Pawar vs ITO, ITA No.1929/PUN/2025 held as under : Quote, “15. In view of the factual matrix of the case and legal position set out above and in the absence of any contrary material/judicial precedent brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the impugned notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic in nature and therefore not adjudicated. ” Unquote.

13.

Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhavik Bhupendra Shah vs ACIT [2026] 187 taxmann.com 884 (Bombay)[15-06-2026] held as under : Quote. “ In the light of the fact that the impugned Notice is issued on or after 1st April 2021 and pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16, we hold that the same is clearly time barred as conceded by the Learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). Accordingly, the Writ Petition succeeds and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is set aside.” Unquote.

14.

The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Selvakumar Vethamonickam Nadar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2) vide order dated 24 December 2025 in WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 41554 OF 2025 held as under: Quote, “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 23 rd 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” Unquote

15.

Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratiksha Garg vs ACIT Central Circle W.P.(C) 16878/2024 CM APPL. 71476/2024 held as under :

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

Quote, “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as “A. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 22.06.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act; and the consequential notice 25.05.2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act; the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act in the case of the petitioner for AY 2015-16”; ……………………….. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2015-16 are liable to be set aside. It is so directed. 5. 6. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.” Unquote.

16.

The facts in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma (supra) and assessee are identical. In the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma (supra) the notice u/s 148 was issued on 05.04.2022 whereas in the case of assessee, the notice u/s 148 was issued on 10.04.2022 for AY 2015-16. Respectfully following the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, ITAT, Pune we hold that notice u/s 148 dated 10.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is bad in law. Accordingly, the reassessment order dated 15.03.2024 is void-ab-initio.

17.

In the result, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

18.

In this case, assessee had deposited cash in his bank account. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed elaborate submission. Assessee explained that the assessee is an agriculturist. Assessee also submitted that the assessee sells crops in the open market and do not have any documentary evidence. However, the assessee had filed copy of 7/12 extract which shows crop grown by the assessee. The agricultural land and crops grown have already been

ITA No. 761/PUN/2026

reproduced above. It is also pleaded by the assessee that certain deposits were out of earlier cash withdrawn. The assessee had filed cash flow before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had reproduced the same at page Nos. 5-8 of the order. We have studied the cash flow statement and noted that there have been cash withdrawals which have been redeposited. It is also observed that the assessee had around 16 Acres of land. The 7/12 extract shows crops grown by the assessee. This explains that the assessee had sufficient agricultural income to explain the cash deposits. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the assessee had explained source of cash deposits. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition. Thus, ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed.

19.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 25-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.25 15:30:30 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „B‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →