RAVI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1966/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 October 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-2016 was invalid. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in Narendra Maganlal Purohit vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which in turn followed the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Supreme Court had noted the Revenue's concession 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 during the period prescribed under TOLA. Since the notice under Section 148 for the present case was issued on April 13, 2021, which is after March 31, 2021, it was held to be invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed. The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee and dismissed all other grounds as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ravi Prahladbhai Patel (HUF), filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The original assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad. The dispute arose from the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-2016 was valid, considering the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and subsequent judicial pronouncements. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated and that the order passed under Section 147 was bad in law. The assessee relied on the grounds raised in their appeal, specifically Ground No. 2, which challenged the validity of the notice under Section 148A and the subsequent reassessment order. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 20/03/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissedthe appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee pressed into service Ground No.2 raised in the present appeal which reads as under: Commissioner of Income-tax, [2026] ITR 184 (Gujarat) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015- 2016 after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70(SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), holding as under:

“11. During the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Apex Court, Revenue conceded to the effect that so far as Assessment Year 2015- 2016 is concerned, Revenue could not have issued the notices under section 3(1) of TOLA as considering the time period as prescribed under section 149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such ….. circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015- 2016 are held to be invalid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal(supra).

12.

The Hon'ble Apex Court followed the decision of Rajeev Board of Direct Taxes reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) and after recording the concession of the learned advocate for the department and in view of the concession given before the Apex Court by learned advocate appearing for the Revenue as recorded in para 19(f) of the judgment in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), has quashed and set aside the notice issued after 31.03.2021 under TOLA for A.Y. 2015-16 as under:

"

1.

Leave granted.

2.

These appeals arise from the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- "

1.

The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record.

2.

In view of the order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P.(C) No.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the grounds urged in the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders.

3.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms."

3.

We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants(assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue.

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 and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, 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 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed.

7.

The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.

8.

The relief in terms of prayer (a) is granted.

9.

The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

13.

Similar orders are also passed by the Apex Court in the following cases: 1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1) and ors vs. Nehal Ashit Shah in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 57209/2024; 2) The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur vs. R.K.Build Creations Private Limited in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024. 14.The Delhi High Court has also passed the similar order in following cases: 1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) 2) Lalit Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi);

15.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision in case of Jay Jay Agro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Karnal & Anr in CWP 7405/2025

16.

Rajasthan High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Shreyansh Mehta S/o Shri Shanti Lal Mehta, vs. Income Tax Officer, Udaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 3299/2023. 4

17.

Karnataka High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Shri Civil Application No.3154 of 2022 and allied matters) has held as under:

"

15.

Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent-Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd(Supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 2015-16, all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 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 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred."

19.

In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, these petitions are also allowed. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015- 2016 are held to be invalid as same were issued during the extended period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under TOLA.

20.

Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.” (Emphasis Supplied)

5.

In our view, the above judgment of the jurisdictional High Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case as notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for the Assessment Year 2015- 2016 on 13/04/2021 (falling after 31/03/2021). Therefore, respectfully following the same, we quash the aforesaid notice, dated 13/04/2021, issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the Assessment Order, dated 30/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 are also quashed. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee is allowed, while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

6.

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 14.10.2026 (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar) Judicial Member

िदनांकDated : 14.10.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad; HC.PS आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबं"धतआयकरआयु"त/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)

5.

"वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file.आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →