GAJGAMINI MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2769/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 October 2026AY 2015-20166 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, where it was stated that for AY 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 the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Tribunal also referred to a Delhi High Court decision in Gopal Bansal vs. ACIT, which quashed proceedings for AY 2015-16 initiated by a notice dated August 31, 2024, as time-barred. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential orders were quashed and set aside. The operative direction was to quash the notice and set aside the consequential orders.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee, Gajagamini Management Pvt. Ltd., had filed its return of income declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice under Section 148A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on May 17, 2024, and an order under Section 148A(D) on August 30, 2024, followed by a notice under Section 148 on the same date. The assessee contended that these proceedings were barred by limitation. The period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on March 31, 2022. The notices were issued significantly after this date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated August 30, 2024, for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, turning on the provisions related to the time limits for issuing such notices. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the proceedings are barred by limitation, as the notice under Section 148A(B) was issued on August 30, 2024, which is after March 31, 2022. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajeev Bansal and a Kolkata High Court order in M/s Harroze Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 139,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 2769 /KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 Gajagamini Management Pvt. Ltd..........................................................................Appellant 01, Campus Station Feder Road, Beside Siliguri-734001, West Bengal, India [PAN- AAECG6442M]

Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax....... .................,..……………....……….Respondent Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Appearances by: S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Ambrish Mishra, D.R, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Date of concluding the hearing: October 06, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: October 30 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 04.06.2026 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147r.w.s144 of the Assessment Year 2015-16 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order by taking a legal ground that in the present assessment year notice issued u/s 148A(B) on 30.08.2024 is barred by limitation in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167taxmann.com 70 (SC). Contrary to that the Ld. DR supports the impugned order.

ITA No.2769/Kol/2026 3. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the record we find that the present case relates to the A.Y 2015- 16. The assessee company filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring total income NIL.A show cause notice u/s 148A(B) of the Act was issued on 17.05.2024 after obtaining prior approval of the component authority and order u/s 148A(D) of the Act was passed on 30.08.2024, and notice u/s 148 of the Act was also issued on the same date. The submission of the AR is that proceeding is barred by limitation and the notice issued after 31.03.2022.The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Rajeev Bansal case and also on a recent order passed by the Kolkata High Court in WPA No. 6001/2026[KOL] in M/s Harroze Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Central Circle Kolkata. It is an admitted fact that in the present case period of six years expired on 31.03.2022, notice issued by the Ld. AO u/s 148A(B) of the Act on 17.08.2024 and notice issued u/s 148 on 30.08.2024. We have gone through the order passed by the Kolkata High Court passed in M/s Harroze Enterprise Ltd.(Supra) and find that Hon’ble court has held that notice issued on 31.08.2024 for the A.Y 2015-16 is time barred by following the decision of Rajeev Bansal. 3.1. We have also came across with the judgment passed by Apex Court in Deepak Steel And Power Limited Vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes in Civil Appeal No- 5177 to 5179/2025 and held thus- 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 2

ITA No.2769/Kol/2026 grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law 17:51:47 IST Reason: 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. 3.2. It is also pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gopal Bansal vs ACIT quash the proceedings for A.Y.- 2015-16 initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.08.2024 holding that it is barred by limitation.

4.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and considering the Apex Court the notice issued u/s 148 for the A.Y.- 2015-16 is hereby quashed. Consequently, and thereto all order passed in pursuant to the notices are also hereby set aside.

Kolkata, 30th October, 2026.

ITA No.2769/Kol/2026

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 30. 10.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 12:01:58 +05'30'

ITA No.2769/Kol/2026

ITA No.2769/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →