POLYCOAT ELECTRA SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 27/05/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 25/05/2026, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’],for the Assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The grounds raised by the Assessee read as under:

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee stated that in the present case reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under Section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that during the course of hearing in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70(SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), Revenue had conceded that so far as Assessment Year 2015-2016 is concerned, Revenue could not have issued the notices under Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [for short ‘TOLA’] as considering the time period as prescribed under section 149 of the Act with effect from 01/04/2021, three years would be over on 31/03/2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31/03/2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 were held to be invalid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 25/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act should be quashed.

Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax, [2026] ITR 184 (Gujarat), wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra).

Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative opposed the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee.

On perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Narendra Maganlal Purohit (supra), we find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court concluded the notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 was invalid holding as under:

We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants(assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue.

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 and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, 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 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."

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 4 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 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed.

The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.

The relief in terms of prayer (a) is granted.

The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

Similar orders are also passed by the Apex Court in the following cases: 1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1) and ors vs. Nehal Ashit Shah in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 57209/2024; 2) The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur vs. R.K.Build Creations Private Limited in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024. 14. The Delhi High Court has also passed the similar order in following cases: 1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) 2) Lalit Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi);

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision in case of Jay Jay Agro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Karnal & Anr in CWP 7405/2025

Rajasthan High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Shreyansh Mehta S/o Shri Shanti Lal Mehta, vs. Income Tax Officer, Udaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 3299/2023. 5

Karnataka High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Shri (order dated 17.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.3154 of 2022 and allied matters) has held as under:

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 2015-16, all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 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."

In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, these petitions are also allowed. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015- 2016 are held to be invalid as same were issued during the extended period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under TOLA.

Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.” (Emphasis Supplied)

In our view, the above judgment of the juri ictional High Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case as notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for the Assessment Year 2015-

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.