ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN vs. SUMUKH KRISHNA DEVELOPERS , THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9518/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2026AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 issued for AY 2015-16 on 04.04.2022 was barred by limitation. Following Supreme Court decisions, the CIT(A)'s order setting aside the notice and consequential assessment was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed a notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16. The notice was issued on 04.04.2022, after the prescribed time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 after 01.04.2021 is barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 9518/Mum./2025 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) ITO, Ward – 3(2), 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 ……………. Appellant PAN : ABXFS1228E v/s

Sumukh Krishna Developers, Mrs. Sumukh Enterprises, D-502, Kasturi Plaza, Mandpada Road, Dombivali East, Thane ……………. Respondent Maharashtra - 421201

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

Date of Hearing – 09/06/2026 Date of Order – 19/06/2026

O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 07.10.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16, arising out of the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

2 ITA No.9518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

2.

In spite of issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment sought. Since identical issue in the Revenue's appeal has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), we dispose of this appeal after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

The assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 04.04.2022 after 01.04.2021. As a matter of fact, in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Revenue had conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped and the assessment would fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. In view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the notices issued u/s 148 after 01.04.2021 for the assessment year 2015-16 are barred by limitation. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., [2025] 173

3 ITA No.9518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

taxmann.com 497 (Del.), held that since TOLA was not applicable in respect of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16, the impugned notice was liable to be set aside.

4.

In the instant case, the notice u/s 148 was issued on 04.04.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 and, therefore, such notice was issued beyond the time limit and is barred by limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly quashed the notice u/s 148 as well as the consequential assessment framed pursuant to such notice as bad in law. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

5.

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2026

- Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, DATED: 19/06/2026 Prabhat

4 ITA No.9518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →