KOTADIYA CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1400/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2015-16 was reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) on 26.05.2022. The assessee argued that this notice was time-barred based on Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Whether the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1400/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Kotadiya Corporation The ACIT 120, F.P. No. 21, Circle-2(1)(1), T.P. No. 58, Vs Surat Rameshwaram Green, Bamroli, Surat-395005, Gujarat (Respondent) PAN: AALFK7894B (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Revenue Represented: Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 06-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 26-05-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

I.T.A No. 1400//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Kotadiya Corporation vs. ACIT

2.

The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. act by ld. A.O for A.Y 2015-16 is invalid being barred by limitation in view of the Honorable Supreme court's decision in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal- Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in reopening the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. assessing officer has erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act & thereby levying tax at the flat rate. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.

3.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Assessee submitted as follows:

1.

In the instant case the matter relates to the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the IT act for A. Y 2015 16. The original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021. Subsequent to Supreme Court decision in case of UOI V. Ashish Agrawal & others, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 26.05.2022 as evident from page 4 of assessment order.

2.

The issue of notice is time barred in view of Supreme court decision in case of Rajeev Bansal, where in para 19(f) of the judgement it is observed that revenue conceded that for A.Y 2015-16 all notices issued after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped.

I.T.A No. 1400//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Kotadiya Corporation vs. ACIT

3.

The above decision of Supreme Court has been followed by jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in series of cases as under & reopening of assessment for A.Y 2015-16 has been quashed :-  Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat)[17-06- 2025]  Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 179 taxmann.com 54 (Gujarat)[22-07-2025  MOHAMED RAOOF NOOR MOHAMMED CAMBAYWALA Vs ITO & ORS – SCA NO. 6035 of 2026, dated 28.04.2026  MOHAMED MUNAF NOOR MOHAMMED CAMBAYWALA Vs ITO & ORS - SCA NO. 6159 of 2026, dated 29.04.2026  Dimpal Hemang Desai V ITO & Ors – SCA No. 6101 of 2026 dated 29.04.2026

4.

Hence, the issue of notice under section 148 of the act for assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation and the same is untenable in the eyes of law.

4.

Learned Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not dispute the above submission of the Assessee that the reopening notice under section 148 was barred by limitation.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that 148A(b) notice was issued on 26-05-2022 for the Asst. Year 2015-16, which is held to be time barred on identical case before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal.

I.T.A No. 1400//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 4 Kotadiya Corporation vs. ACIT

5.1. Further, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has followed the above judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mohmedmunaf Noormohmed Cambaywala Vs. ITO vide order dated 29-04-2026 by observing as follows: “….3. It is demonstrated before us that the issue pertaining to the notices invoking section 148 of the Act (prior to 01.04.2021) and Section 148A(b) of the Act, amended by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693.

4.

For the Assessment Year 2015-2016, the Revenue conceded before the Apex Court that all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short “the TOLA”). The submission was that as per the amended provisions in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the Revenue could have issued notices only upto 31.03.2022, i.e. under the new regime, the notices issued by the Revenue are also time barred. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings including the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 250 read with Section 144B of the Act, dated 21.03.2026, is also bad in law.

5.

Heard both the sides. The position of law placed before us could not be disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) as well as by various decisions of this court, we, therefore, quash all the notices, subject matter of challenge in the captioned writ petition and all consequential proceedings including the reassessment order passed as

I.T.A No. 1400//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 Kotadiya Corporation vs. ACIT

above. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.” 5.2. Respectfully following the above Hon’ble Supreme Court and Jurisdictional High Court judgment, the reopening of notice issued for the Asst. Year 2015-16 on 26-05-2022 is time barred and the entire assessment is liable to be quashed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26-05-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat : Dated 26/05/2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →