VINOD MADHUKAR BOMBALE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 998/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 June 2026AY 2015-20165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law, following the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. The assessment order was consequently void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 on July 19, 2022, for AY 2015-16. The assessee argued this notice was bad in law.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 after the period prescribed by the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, for AY 2015-16.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda, CA

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 AY2015-16 on 9-12-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28-04-2023.

2.

Submission of Ld.AR: Ld.AR submitted that the Notice u/s 148dated 19/07/2022 for AY 2015-16 is bad in law. Ld.AR submitted that initial Notice u/s 148 was issued on 15/04/2021 for AY 2015-16which was after a lapse of six years . Ld.AR submitted that Revenue has accepted this fact before Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal.Ld.AR relied on the case laws filed in the paper book.

3.

Submission of Ld.DR: Ld.DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A).

ITA No. 998/PUN/2026

4.

Findings and analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case assessee is an individual and had filed return of Income for AY 2015- 16 on 31/10/2015 u/s 139(1) of the Act.

4.1 The Assessing Officer issued Notice u/s 148 dated 19/07/2022 .This fact has not been disputed by Ld.DR.

5.

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 SC 2693/[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.

5.1 The above referred decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayure Kumar 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)

ITA No. 998/PUN/2026

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. 5.2 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.

5.3 ITAT Visakhapatnam 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.

5.4 Similar view has 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.

ITA No. 998/PUN/2026

6.

In this case notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19.07.2022 for AY 2015-16. Respectfully following the Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra), Hon‟ble high Court (supra) we hold that notice u/s 148 is bad in law. Accordingly, entire assessment order is void ab initio.

7.

In the result, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

8.

Neither Ld. AR nor Ld. DR argued any other ground. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 to 8 are dismissed.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 30-06-2026 Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.06.30 15:38:36 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/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 र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No. 998/PUN/2026

S.No. Details Date Designation 1 Draft dictated on Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 JM/AM Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →