SUDHANSU SEKHAR MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 739/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2015-169 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 is invalid and quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to the concession made by the revenue in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was accepted that for Assessment Year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the prescribed period under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice in this case was dated June 25, 2021, which falls within this period. The Tribunal also found support from the decision in ITO vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, which reiterated the same principle for Assessment Year 2015-16. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer treated a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 30, 2022, as an order passed under Section 148A(d) on July 29, 2022. The assessee contended that the impugned assessment order dated May 14, 2023, should be cancelled, relying on Supreme Court decisions. The revenue supported the Assessing Officer's findings. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148A(d) was dated July 29, 2022, and the assessment order was dated May 14, 2023. The assessment year in question is 2015-16.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated May 14, 2023, for Assessment Year 2015-16 is liable to be quashed, considering the notice issued under Section 148A(d) dated July 29, 2022. The assessee argued that the impugned assessment order should be cancelled, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148A(d) was dated July 29, 2022, and the assessment order dated May 14, 2023, should be quashed based on these precedents. The revenue, through the Senior DR, supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and did not present any specific counter-arguments beyond this general support.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 06/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)] in Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10405023 dated 23/05/2026 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer has treated the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 as order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 29.07.2022 following the decision of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022. It was the submission that the impugned assessment order dated 14.05.2023 may be cancelled

2 considering the order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 29.07.2022. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144(SC) and submitted that the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed.

4.

In reply, the Sr. DR has supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present appeal clearly shows that the impugned assessment year is A.Y 2015-16. The order issued u/s 148A(d) dated 29.07.2022 reads as follows:

3 4 5 6 A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5.1 case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 4 and 5 has held as follows:

“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 April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during

7 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.”

5.

2 We further find support from another decision of the Hon’ble to 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“4. The instant cases were segregated through the above- mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

6.

However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent- assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly.

7.

Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set

8 aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the juri ictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues.”

5.

3

Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. referred to supra and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Sai Kumar Mateti referred to supra, it is held that the notice u/s 148 is invalid and the same is quashed and also the consequential assessment order is also quashed.

6.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026. GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 06/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रधतधलधपअग्रेधर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 4. 5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदि, आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack गार्डफाईल / Guard file. 6. 9 सत्यादपतप्रदत ////

आदेशािुसार/ BY 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 →