Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16, arising from an assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B. The original notice under Section 148 was issued on 05.04.2022.
Held
The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 dated 05.04.2022, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, which was based on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed, given the subsequent CBDT notifications and judicial pronouncements.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 250, 148, 149, 148A, 151A, 145(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vijayabai Ramanlal Kotecha, V The Income Tax Officer, Indira Nagar, Bhadgaon Road, s Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Tal: Pachora, Dist: Jalgaon – 424201. Maharashtra. PAN: BSHPK6334D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Vinay Kawdia (through virtual) Revenue by Shri Ambarnath Khule-JCIT(Through Virtual Hearing) Date of hearing 24/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16 dated 09.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 04.03.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the notice u/s 148 issued on 05.04.22 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation in view of the section 149 of the Act and therefore liable to be quashed.
2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, assessment made in respect of an issue that was not disclosed in notice issued u/s 148A(b) is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s. 148 Dt. 05.04.2022 issued for A.Y. 2015-16 is bad law and void-ab- initio for want of jurisdiction in view of Section 151A read with CBDT Notification dt. 29.03.2022 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the AO has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act without pointing any inherent defect in books of accounts.
5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the AO erred in recalculating sales at Rs. 3,39.54,874/- and further estimating net profit at 8 percent of sales without appreciating facts of the case and submissions on record.
6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the estimated addition of 8% of sales made by AO on the basis of his own surmises and conjectures and without rebutting the book results of the comparable cases placed on record by the assessee in support of his claim.
7) The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal
, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2 Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.AR invited our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO, International Tax, Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom) order dated 13.10.2025. Ld.AR submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed the notice under section 148 dated 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. Ld.AR submitted that in the case of Assessee also, notice u/s.148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed on 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. Therefore, ld.AR submitted that facts are identical and hence Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision is binding precedent.
3. Ld.AR further submitted that Assessing Officer has not made addition in the assessment order on the grounds on which reopening was done, hence, the addition cannot be sustained. Ld.AR relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom). Ld.AR also filed copy of ITAT Pune’s order in the case of Shre Mahalaxmi Gramin BigarshetiSahakariPatsanstha Vs. ITO in order dated 20.06.2025. Ld.AR filed copies of these orders.
Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that as per amended provisions of Section 148 which are effective from 01.04.2021, the reopening can be made upto 10 years. Therefore, notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015-16 is not bad in law.
4.1 However, ld.DR could not submit any case law. Findings & Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, was passed on 05.04.2022 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 05.04.2022. The said facts are mentioned in the Assessment Order also. The relevant portion of assessment order is reproduced here as under : “Hence, order U/s 148A(d) was passed on 05/04/2022 with the prior approval of the Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune deliberating therein facts and circumstances leading to reopening of the case and accordingly notice U/s 148 was issued on 05/04/2022.”
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO, International Tax, Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom) order dated 13.10.2025 has held as under :
Quote“6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates toA.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022which is at page 52 of the paper book. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:- 19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- a……… 7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.
The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- ……………….. 9……………….. 10………………. 11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.”Unquote. (emphasis supplied) 5 6.1 Thus, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has quashed the notice u/s.148 dated 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma following the concession made by Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Since the facts in the case of present assessee are identical to the facts of the Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma(supra), respectfully following Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we quash the notice u/s.148 dated 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed.
8. Since we have decided the Ground No.1 in favour of the Assessee, all other grounds become academic in nature, hence, all other grounds are dismissed unadjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 November, 2025. MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 28 Nov, 2025/ SGR 6