NEELAM ARUN UPADHYAYA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 764/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 August 2026AY 2015-1615 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was bad in law and void-ab-initio, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. Consequently, the reassessment and related penalty proceedings were also quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against reassessment orders for AY 2015-16. The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, which the assessee contended was time-barred.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was valid and within the prescribed time limits, considering the amendments to reassessment provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b)

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 Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These three appeals are 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 18.07.2025 and 22.07.2025.

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. For the sake of convenience and since issue involved is same, these three appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3.

We have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal and the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that there was a delay of 142 days in filing of all the three appeals before this Tribunal. Substantial justice is more important than

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned in all the three appeals.

4.

First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 765/PUN/026.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ld. AR appeared virtually and requested for adjournment. The Ld. AR was not aware about the facts of the case. We have rejected the adjournment request of the Ld. AR because the issue is decided by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee.

6.

The Ld. DR relied on the 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 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.

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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.

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-

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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 i.e. 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.

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 ?

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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 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

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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] 444 ITR 1 (SC) has stated that after 01.04.2021, the procedure for reassessment 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)

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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 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

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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 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 issued if it "could not have been issued at that time" under the old law. This

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

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 04.04.2022, 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.”

7.

This appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 22.07.2025 emanating from the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.03.2024 for AY 2015-16.

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

8.

In this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2022 for AY 2015-16. The assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act.

9.

Vide Ground Number 3, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening proceedings.

10.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “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 v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f)which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April1, 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” Unquote.

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

11.

The above referred decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurekumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). The Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court held as under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd (supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 201516, all the notices issued on or after01.04.2021 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 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.”Unquote.

12.

Similarly, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai 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 148dated 5th 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.

13.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mitra Biswas Vs. ITO, (2026) 183 taxmann.com 161 (Bombay) held as under :

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

Quote, “9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered all rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the impugned Notice is dated 14th April 2022 and relates to A.Y.2015- 16. It is also not in dispute that the Department has made a concession before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) which reads as under:-

"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;"

10.

The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel (supra). Paragraph 5 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"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."

11.

Lastly, this Court in Cherian Nallathu (supra) where one of us (B. P. Colabawalla, J.) was a party, under similar circumstances quashed the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act and consequential orders relating to A.Y.2015-16 and granted liberty to the Petitioner to withdraw the pending Appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

12.

As far as the delay is concerned, we note that the Petitioner has explained the same in her Writ Petition. We may also observe that since the Department has unequivocally conceded the issue in question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we do not deem it appropriate to deny relief to the Petitioner solely on the ground of delay. Any delay on the part of the Petitioner would not validate a notice which is otherwise declared to be invalid in the eyes of law, more so when the Department has initiated recovery proceedings based upon such notice. We thus find merit in the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act and all consequential Orders/Notices for A.Y.2015-16, are bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned Notice dated 14th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act (Exhibit 'D'), the Assessment Order (Exhibit 'H'), and all

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

consequential orders/notices including recovery notices thereof are hereby quashed and set aside.” Unquote.

14.

The ITAT Pune in the case of Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani Vs. ITO in ITA No. 873/PUN/2025 for AY 2017-18 has held as under: Quote, “9. We find since the notice has been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 151, the competent authority for granting the approval for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Since the approval in the instant case has been granted by the PCIT instead of any of the above authorities, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law, the re-assessment proceedings are invalid.” Unquote.

15.

ITAT Visakahapatnam in the case of Bhargav Ram Munagapati Vs. ITO in ITA No.510/VIZ/2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 has held as under : Quote, “13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) and consistently following the view taken in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025, we are of the view that re-assessment proceedings initiated for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the instant case are without jurisdiction and hence assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act consequent to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Since the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee by quashing the re- assessment order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Unquote.

16.

Similar view has been taken by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No.2881/PUN/2024 wherein, notice u/s.148 dated 18.07.2022 was quashed by ITAT. Similar view has been taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sagar Bharat Alhat Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2790/PUN/2025, order dated 18.06.2026, Vivek Prasad Vs. ITO

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026 in ITA No. 2573/PUN/2025, order dated 29.06.2026 and Mangala Dilip Shewale Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2504/PUN/2025, order dated 08.06.2026.

17.

Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi , Hon‟ble Bombay High Court (supra) and ITAT Pune, we hereby hold that the Notice u/s 148 dated 04.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is bad in law and accordingly consequential Reassessment is bad in Law. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act is void-ab-initio. Accordingly, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed.

18.

Since we have allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee all other grounds become academic in nature and are dismissed as un-adjudicated.

19.

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

764/PUN/2026

20.

ITA No. 764/PUN/2026 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.07.2025 for AY 2015-16 emanating from penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.09.2024. In ITA No. 765/PUN/2026 we have held that notice u/s 148 is bad in law the assessment order is void-ab-initio. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

763/PUN/2026

21.

ITA No. 763/PUN/2026 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.07.2025 for AY 2015-16 emanating from the

ITA Nos.763, 764 & 765/PUN/2026

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In this case, we have already held that notice u/s 148 is bad in law. Since, the initial assessment proceedings itself is bad in law the penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the penalty. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

22.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly 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 16:35:58 +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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →