ITO-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WARASGAON LAKE VIEW HOTELS LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2788/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 June 2025AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31/07/2022 for AY 2015-16 was bad in law. This decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was accepted that for AY 2015-16, 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. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. CBDT and ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah, which followed the same concession. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside, and the resultant assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the addition of Rs. 4 Crores. The grounds raised by the assessee in the cross-objections were allowed, rendering the revenue's appeal infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, heard appeals for Assessment Year 2015-16. The revenue (Income Tax Officer – 15(3)(1)) appealed an order by the NFAC, Delhi, which had deleted an addition of Rs. 4 Crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68. The assessee (Warasgaon Lake View Hotels Ltd.) filed a cross-objection arguing that the reopening of assessment under Sections 147 to 151 was invalid. The notice under Section 148 for reopening was dated 31/07/2022. The Tribunal decided to address the cross-objection first as it went to the root of the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 by issuing a notice under Section 148 dated 31/07/2022 is bad in law, considering the jurisdictional conditions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have not been fulfilled? The assessee contended that the reopening was bad in law. The revenue argued that the notice was valid. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the validity of the reopening notice. The core of the dispute revolved around the application of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and pronouncements by the Supreme Court regarding reassessment notices issued during specific periods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/Rs
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Hearing: 18/06/2025Pronounced: 20/06/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2788/Mum/2025
C.O. No. 141/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →