GORDHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI KAPADIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S KAPADIA BROTHERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

SCA/9146/2023HC GujaratGJHC24032810202316 June 2026Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gordhanbhai Devjibhai Kapadia, proprietor of M/s Kapadia Brothers, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 27, 2022, and an order under Section 148A(d) dated July 26, 2022. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued a notice under Section 148 on June 4, 2021, for Assessment Year 2013-2014, under the extended time period provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal, this notice was to be treated as a Section 148A(b) notice. The AO provided information on May 31, 2022, and the assessee filed a reply on June 13, 2022. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed on July 26, 2022, and the Section 148 notice was issued on July 27, 2022.

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid. This is because the notice was issued after July 11, 2022, which was determined as the last date for issuance of a notice under Section 148, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The Court referred to paragraph 114(g) and (h) of the Rajeev Bansal judgment, which states that reassessment notices under the new regime must be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. Notices issued beyond this 'surviving period' are time-barred and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned order dated July 26, 2022, and the notice dated July 27, 2022, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed to this extent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 27, 2022, is valid, considering the 'surviving time' limitation as per the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, rendering it invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Karan Sanghani, verified the facts presented by the assessee and could not controvert them, implicitly accepting the assessee's argument regarding the invalidity of the notice due to time bar.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 3(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9146 of 2023 ========================================================== GORDHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI KAPADIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S KAPADIA BROTHERS Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT ========================================================== Appearance: MR DHINAL A SHAH(12077) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 16/06/2026

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1.

Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhinal A. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Maunil Yajnik for the respondent.

2.

This petition is filed challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) dated 27.07.2022 and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.07.2022. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Assessing Officer

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 34,599 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →