B T KADLAG CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED (AY 2015 16) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
WP/10279/2025HC BombayHCBM01038125202515 June 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is time-barred. This finding is based on the admitted fact that the Notice was issued on or after 1st April 2021 and pertains to AY 2015-16. The Court relied on the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693), as recorded in the Supreme Court's order dated 4th May 2026. The Supreme Court had directed that if a matter pertains to AY 2015-16, no further adjudication is required, and the notices should be declared time-barred. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned Notice, along with any consequential actions, was set aside. The rule was made absolute.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, B T Kadlag Construction Private Limited, filed a Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. A primary ground for challenge was the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing Assessing Officer, arguing only a Faceless Assessing Officer could issue such a notice. This Court had initially allowed the petition, relying on its decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the matters back to the High Courts for fresh consideration, particularly in light of the retrospective insertion of Section 147A. The Supreme Court noted that for Assessment Year 2015-16, reassessment notices issued or proposed to be issued would be time-barred, as conceded by the Revenue, citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee argued that the impugned Notice, issued for Assessment Year 2015-16, is time-barred. This contention is supported by a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693), which was reiterated by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The Assessee relies on the Supreme Court's order dated 4th May 2026, which directed that if a case pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16, the notices are liable to be struck down as time-barred. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the learned Additional Solicitor General, conceded before the Supreme Court that for Assessment Year 2015-16, notices issued or proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time, in light of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. The Revenue's concession is recorded in the Supreme Court's order dated 4th May 2026.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

96 wp10279-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10279 OF 2025 B T Kadlag Construction Private Limited .. Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Nashik & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Madhur Agrawal a/w Mr.Jay Bhansali, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr.Suresh Kabra, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JUNE 15, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition inter alia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Year in question is Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

One of the main grounds on which the above Notice is challenged is that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned Notice but it was only the Faceless Assessing Officer who Page 1 of 5 JUNE 15, 2026 Mohite TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.06.19 15:48:59 +0530

96 wp10279-2025.doc

could issue the same. In support of this contention, the Petitioner Assessee relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 decided on 3rd May 2024). 3. Following the aforesaid decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra), the present Writ Petition came to be allowed and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 was set aside. Being aggrieved by the decision passed by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) as well as in a batch of several other Petitions which followed the decision in Hexaware, the Revenue preferred Appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by four separate Orders dated 10th April 2026, 4th May 2026, 15th May 2026 & 15th May 2026 respectively, passed in a batch of matters, remanded the matters back to the respective High Courts for consideration of the issues afresh, especially keeping in mind the amendment introduced by the Legislature, namely the insertion of Section 147A w.e.f. 1st April 2026 having a retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that all contentions raised before the Supreme Court as well as any other grounds to quash the impugned notices could be urged before the High Courts and the Supreme Court had not expressed any Page 2 of 5 JUNE 15, 2026 Mohite

96 wp10279-2025.doc

opinion on the merits of the controversy. This is how the present Writ Petition has come up once again before us. 4. We note that in the aforesaid batch of Appeals disposed of by the Supreme Court, vide its Orders dated 4th May 2026, the Supreme Court, inter alia recorded a concession on the part of the learned Additional Solicitor General that in Assessment cases pertaining to A.Y.2015-16, the Notice issued, proposed to be issued, for re-assessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693). For the sake of convenience, the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4th May 2026 reads as under: “ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters. 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 Page 3 of 5 JUNE 15, 2026 Mohite

96 wp10279-2025.doc

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 aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015- 16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then all the issues shall be resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026. 8. Pending application(s), if any, including application(s) for substitution and impleadment/intervention stand closed.” 5. As can be seen from this Order, the Supreme Court has clearly opined that if it is found that the matter pertains to A.Y.2015-16, no further adjudicatory exercise is required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the Notice as being time barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Page 4 of 5 JUNE 15, 2026 Mohite

96 wp10279-2025.doc

In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that the impugned Notice under Section 148 is issued on or after 1st April 2021 and pertains to A.Y.2015-16. In these circumstances, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is clearly time barred as per the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Accordingly, the Writ Petition succeeds and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is set aside. Consequently, any action taken or emanating from the said Notice is also hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

7.

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 5 of 5 JUNE 15, 2026 Mohite

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →