SANTOSH JAYNARAYAN SHARMA,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law,

1 Assessee has also raised following Additional Grounds of appeal : In this case, the appellant assessee wishes to raise the following Additional Grounds of Appeal - On facts and in law, Without prejudice to original grounds of appeal, - 1] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2015 issued on 18.07.2022 i.e. after a period of six years from end of A.Y.2015-16 was barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal [301 Taxman 238] and hence, the notice u/s 148 and the corresponding asst. order u/s 147 may be declared as null and void in law. 2] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 was issued on the basis of documents pertaining to the assessee seized during search action u/s 132 conducted on a third party i.e. M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Ltd. on 26.05.2017 and therefore, the asst. proceedings initiated under the general provisions of section 147 without following the special procedure prescribed u/s 153C are not sustainable in law and therefore, the notice u/s 148 issued in the instant case, may be declared as null and void in law. 3] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 dated 18.07.2022 issued by the Juri ictional A.O. i.e. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule after 29.03.2022 was contrary to the mandate of section 151A read with CBDT Instruction dated 29.03.2022 and hence, the said notice u/s 148 may be declared as unsustainable in law. 4] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 dated 18.07.2022 did not contain DIN in the body of the notice as mandated vide CBDT Instructions and hence, the said notice u/s 148 may be declared as null and void in law. The appellant submits that the above grounds are purely legal in nature and the relevant facts necessary for adjudicating this ground are discernible from the contents of the notice u/s 148/148A(d)/ 148A(b) itself, which are already available on record and hence, it is prayed that the said additional grounds may please be admitted in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. [229 ITR 373 (SC)].”

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Ground No.1 raised in the Additional Grounds of appeal submitted that since the show cause notice u/s.148 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 has been issued after a period of six years from the end of the A.Y. 2015-16 which in this case has been issued on 18.07.2022, such notice is barred by limitation in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Selvakumar Nadar Vs. ITO (2026) 182 taxmann.com 683 ((Bom HC) and therefore the corresponding assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act deserves to be declared as null and void.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 original return of income filed on 30.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.10,91,150/-. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and thereafter notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 18.07.2022 issued and reassessment proceedings carried out.

So far as the legal issue raised in Additional Grounds of appeal No.1, it is contended that since notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued beyond six years from the end of A.Y. 2015-16

We note that the original notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee on 12.04.2021 but thereafter post judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543) ld. Assessing Officer issued fresh notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act on 26.05.2022 and finally issued the notice u/s.148A(d) of the Act on 18.07.2022. We note that Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Selvakumar Nadar Vs. ITO (2026) 182 taxmann.com 683 ((Bom HC) dealing with very same issue has held as under :

Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- a. ... e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 23 rd April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.

The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

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(1) 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 matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. (emphasis supplied)

Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "

In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) n the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the Learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned."

Lastly, this very Bench on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Verjinia Foods Limited (supra), has allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).

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 148 dated 23 rd 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.”

On going through the judicial precedents referred hereinabove, we find that the same are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case and since in the case of assessee the assessment proceedings in question are for A.Y. 2015-16 and notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 18.07.2022 which is clearly barred by limitation as it has been issued beyond six years from the end of A.Y. 2015-16, such notice u/s.148 of the Act is illegal and bad in law and therefore ld. Assessing Officer failed to assume valid juri iction for carrying out the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings in question for A.Y. 2015-16 being illegal and bad in law are hereby quashed and impugned addition stands deleted.

Since assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised vide Ground No.1 of Additional Ground, dealing with remaining grounds of appeal on merits would be merely academic in nature and therefore dismissed as Infructuous.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,