WOODLAND RETAILS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -9(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 335/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 November 2025AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 23.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 is indeed barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that the notice was issued beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal noted that the relaxation granted by TOLA from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 is not applicable to the impugned assessment year. This conclusion was drawn from the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), which was subsequently followed by the Delhi High Court in Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal also acknowledged that the Rajasthan High Court, in WP No. 3667 of 2023, had taken a similar view. Therefore, considering the facts of the assessee's case in light of these judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal found the reopening of assessment to be barred by limitation and accordingly quashed the same. The operative direction was to quash the reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Woodland Retails Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 declaring a total income of ₹55,850. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 23.06.2021. This notice was preceded by a notice under Section 148A(b) and an order under Section 148A(d) passed on 29.07.2022. The assessee appealed the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 09.12.2024, to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, for AY 2015-16. The dispute centers on the validity of the reassessment notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 23.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation. They contended that the benefit of TOLA is not available for AY 2015-16. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and the Delhi High Court's decision in Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which held that reopening for AY 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA from 01.04.2021. They also cited decisions from the Coordinate Bench in Orbit Financial Capital and Coplama Products Pvt. Ltd., and the Rajasthan High Court in WP No. 3667 of 2023, supporting their argument. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, &, Shri Saurav Gupta, ARs
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 13.10.2025Pronounced: 04.11.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 09.12.2024 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.06.2021 is barred by limitation in consonance with ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024 (SC).

4.

The Ld. Counsel vehemently submitted before us that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as benefit of TOLA is not available to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee relied on in defense of his arguments on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024, reported in 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) pronounced on 03.10.2024 which has been followed by Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in WP(C) No. 17639/2022 order dated 13.12.2024 wherein it has been held that reopening of assessment for 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and from 01.04.2021. The said decision has been followed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Orbit Financial Capital, ITA No. 5812/M/2024. The ld. AR submitted that even the Coordinate Bench in the case of Coplama Products Pvt. Ltd. in pronounced on 31.01.2025 has followed the said decision. Thereafter, the Rajasthan High Court in WP No. 3667 of 2023 vide its order dated 27.01.2025

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that undisputedly, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 23.06.2021 which falls beyond the period of limitation as the relaxation granted by TOLA w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 is not available in the impugned assessment year as has been held in the case of Rajeev Bansal(supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter the said decision has been followed in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the reopening of assessment for Ay 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and from 01.04.2021. We also note that Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in WP No. 3667 of 2023 dated 27.01.2025 has taken a similar view. Considering the facts of the assessee’s case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to hold that the reopening of assessment is barred by limitation and is accordingly quashed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →