NEETA AMAR DHENDE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/11458/2023HC BombayHCBM01027500202315 June 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, issued on or after April 1, 2021, is clearly time-barred. This decision was based on the admitted facts of the case and the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). Specifically, paragraph 19(f) of the Rajeev Bansal judgment records the Revenue's concession that for the assessment year 2015-16, 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 (TOLA). Consequently, the impugned Notice under Section 148 was set aside, and any consequential action was quashed. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neeta Amar Dhende, filed a Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1). The assessment year in question is 2015-16, and the Section 148 notice was issued on or after April 1, 2021. The petitioner argued that the notice is time-barred, relying on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Vikas Khanchandani, did not contest this specific point. Rule was issued on February 25, 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, when issued on or after April 1, 2021, is time-barred, in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Notice under Section 148 is time-barred, citing the concession made by the Revenue in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). The petitioner also mentioned that one of the grounds for challenge was based on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (W.P. No. 1778 of 2023 decided on 3rd May 2024). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue on this issue, other than their prior concession before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

84 wp11458-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11458 OF 2023 Neeta Amar Dhende .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1) and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sham Walve and Mr Abhishek Khandelwal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Khanchandani, for the Respondents / Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JUNE 15, 2026 P. C. 1. In the present Writ Petition, Rule was issued on 25th February 2025. 2. The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Though one of the main grounds on which the aforesaid Notice is challenged is based on the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Page 1 of 3 JUNE 15, 2026 Mamta Kale MAMTA AMAR KALE Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date: 2026.06.17 12:49:16 +0530

84 wp11458-2023.doc

Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 decided on 3rd May 2024), it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in any event, the Notice is time barred in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70(SC). 4. In the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the Notice under Section 148 is issued on or after 1st April 2021. It is also an admitted fact that the present case pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. On these facts, we find that the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra), squarely applies. Paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) reads as under: “19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue : a. ….. b. ….. c. …. d. …. e. …. f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;” Page 2 of 3 JUNE 15, 2026 Mamta Kale

84 wp11458-2023.doc

5.

In these circumstances, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is clearly time barred. Accordingly, the Writ Petition succeeds and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is hereby 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 3 of 3 JUNE 15, 2026 Mamta Kale

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →