SHATAKSHI MUDRA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA

Ms. Ankeeta Lohia, CA & Sri G. S. Kedia, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted that in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is liable to be quashed and consequently the assessment order passed on 22.05.2023 is liable to be quashed.

In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Deekay Pine Board (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 732 (SC) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Shatakshi Mudra Investment P. ltd. AY: 2015-16 in the case of ITO Vs. Alpesh Hasmukh Sheth [2025] 170 taxmann.com 629 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to para 4 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alpesh Hasmukh Sheth (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine whether the facts in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) applied to the facts in that case. The direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows: “4. The assessing officers will dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by this Court. Thereafter, the assessee who is aggrieved will be at liberty to pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, save and except for the issues which have been concluded in the judgment.”

It was the submission that the issues in the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification as to whether the facts of the Rajeev Bansal (supra) applied to the case of the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued on 23.07.2022 and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asish Agarwal read with CBDT Instruction No. 1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022, it is clear that the assessment has been done on the basis of the notice issued u/s. 148 on 23.07.2022. The assessment order also refers to a notice issued u/s. 148 on 28.04.2021. However, such notice would not have a play in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asish Agrawal in Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022. The notice issued u/s. 148 on 23.07.2022 becomes the foundation of the assessment order, which is impugned. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and more specifically at para 19 sub-paras (e) and (f) as extracted above clearly show that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was to be issued at the outer limit of 31.03.2022. In the present case the notice has been issued much after 31.03.2022. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Shatakshi Mudra Investment P. ltd. AY: 2015-16 Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), it is held that the notice issued u/s. 148 is barred by limitation and consequently stands quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, which was reopened u/s. 147 also stands quashed.

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