JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The primary issue raised was that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation and thus invalid. The assessee also argued that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated based on Supreme Court judgments.
Held
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, along with all consequential proceedings, as it was issued beyond the permissible 'surviving time' as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14 was barred by limitation and hence invalid.
Sections Cited
148, 50C, 148A(d), TOLA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, ITO Ward-2(3)(2), 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. Surat-395001. PAN NO. BCZPP 8713 R Appellant Respondent
: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Assessee by Revenue by : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds :
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal although the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T act, 1961 is barred by limitation and is therefore invalid in the eyes of law.
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 2 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
Even otherwise it is to state that the order passed by Even otherwise it is to state that the order passed by Even otherwise it is to state that the order passed by assessing officer is invalid as notice issued u/s 148 of assessing officer is invalid as notice issued u/s 148 of assessing officer is invalid as notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is quashed by the Honourable Gujarat the I.T. Act, 1961, is quashed by the Honourable Gujarat the I.T. Act, 1961, is quashed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court and the same has not been contested further High Court and the same has not been contested further High Court and the same has not been contested further in Supreme court by revenue. Supreme court by revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law R on the subject, the learned Commissioner of law R on the subject, the learned Commissioner of law R on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,51,65,000/ 1,51,65,000/-under section 50C of the | T Act as long er section 50C of the | T Act as long term capital gain without considering the facts submitted term capital gain without considering the facts submitted term capital gain without considering the facts submitted by assessee. by assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),NAFC has erred in Tax (Appeals),NAFC has erred in confirming the action of confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition u/s 50C without assessing officer in making addition u/s 50C without assessing officer in making addition u/s 50C without giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition. acquisition. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by It is therefore prayed that above addition made by It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income me-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted 2. At the very threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for At the very threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for At the very threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee sought to raise an the assessee sought to raise an additional ground additional ground impugning the very validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was contended very validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was contended very validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was contended that, in the light of th that, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme e judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Union of India and others Vs Ashish of India and others Vs Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal & Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal & Others, (2024) 469 ITR 46(SC) (2024) 469 ITR 46(SC) the impugned notice issued under the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) stands vitiated tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) stands vitiated being issued beyond the period of limitation permissible under law. being issued beyond the period of limitation permissible under law. being issued beyond the period of limitation permissible under law. The ld Counsel also relied on the decision dated 09/09/2025 of The ld Counsel also relied on the decision dated 09/09/2025 of The ld Counsel also relied on the decision dated 09/09/2025 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Cou Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chaturbhai Mohan bhai Chaturbhai Mohan bhai Kalsariya vs ACIT in Civil Application No. 11534 of 2025 . Kalsariya vs ACIT in Civil Application No. 11534 of 2025 Kalsariya vs ACIT in Civil Application No. 11534 of 2025 According to the learned counsel, as per the ratio laid down by the According to the learned counsel, as per the ratio laid down by the According to the learned counsel, as per the ratio laid down by the
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 3 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
Hon’ble Apex Court, such notice could only have been issued within Hon’ble Apex Court, such notice could only have been issued within Hon’ble Apex Court, such notice could only have been issued within the subsisting or surv the subsisting or surviving period available under the erstwhile iving period available under the erstwhile regime, and any notice issued thereafter would be void ab initio. regime, and any notice issued thereafter would be void regime, and any notice issued thereafter would be void
2.1 In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel for In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel for In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a tabulated computation of the the assessee placed on record a tabulated computation of the the assessee placed on record a tabulated computation of the limitation period, prepared on the basis of the illustration adduced , prepared on the basis of the illustration adduced , prepared on the basis of the illustration adduced in paragraph 112 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme in paragraph 112 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme in paragraph 112 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity: Court, which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity: Court, which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
Jigneshbahi Arvindbhai Patel A. Y. 2013-14 Calculation of time limit for issue Calculation of time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 of Act 1961 as per example given by of notice u/s 148 of Act 1961 as per example given by Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal: Rajeev Bansal:- SC- eg. (para Assessee’s Assessee’s 112) case case
Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show 01.05.2021 30.Q6J2Q2L 30.Q6J2Q2L cause notice will also come into effect from cause notice will also come into effect from (notice issued u/s 148 (notice issued u/s 148 under old regime - deemed to be SCN under new regime) deemed to be SCN under new regime)
After accounting for the exclusions, the After accounting for the exclusions, the 61 days 1 day 1 day Assessing Officer will have surviving time Assessing Officer will have surviving time calculated from the date of issue of notice u/s calculated from the date of issue of notice u/s 148 till 30.06.2021 148 till 30.06.2021
Reply filed by assessee on Reply filed by assessee on 18.06.2022 03. .06.2022 & 29.06.2022 29.06.2022
18.06.2022 03.06.2022 03.06.2022 04. Time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer Time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer after receiving the response of the assessee after receiving the response of the assessee which is on
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 4 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
The assessing Officer will have to issue notice The assessing Officer will have to issue notice 18.08.2022 04.06.2022 04.06.2022 u/s. 148 of 1T Act u/s. 148 of 1T Act 1961 on or before surviving time limit available as per Sr. No. 2 above after time limit available as per Sr. No. 2 above after receipt of reply from assessee receipt of reply from assessee
Notice u/s. 148 of the Act is issued on Notice u/s. 148 of the Act is issued on 30.07.2022 30.07.2022
Issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is delayed by Issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is delayed by 56 days 56 days
Status of Notice U/s 148 of the act Status of Notice U/s 148 of the act Time barred Time barred
Status of Order U/s 148A(d) of the act Status of Order U/s 148A(d) of the act Time barred Time barred
We have given our most careful consideration to the rival We have given our most careful consideration to the rival We have given our most careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on either side, and have also perused the submissions advanced on either side, and have also perused submissions advanced on either side, and have also perused material available on record. The additional ground raised by the material available on record. The additional ground raised by the material available on record. The additional ground raised by the assessee being purely legal in nature, and going to the very root of assessee being purely legal in nature, and going to the very root of assessee being purely legal in nature, and going to the very root of the matter, requires no investigation into fresh facts. We, therefore, the matter, requires no investigation into fresh facts. We, therefore, the matter, requires no investigation into fresh facts. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to admit the same for adju deem it just and proper to admit the same for adjudication. dication.
3.1 The finding of Hon’ble Guja 3.1 The finding of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of rat High Court in the case of Chaturbhai Mohan Bhai Bhai Kalsariya vs. ACIT (supra) is reproduced as ACIT (supra) is reproduced as under:
In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal report of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ed in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into statute under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into statute under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into statute with effect from 01.04.2021. with effect from 01.04.2021. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) has laid down the 469 ITR 46 (SC) has laid down the law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice depending upon the surviving time left between the date of depending upon the surviving time left between the date of depending upon the surviving time left between the date of
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 5 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with section issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with section issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with section 3(1) of TOLA upto 30.06.2021 and th 3(1) of TOLA upto 30.06.2021 and the issuance of notice under e issuance of notice under section 148 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble section 148 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble section 148 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). 7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax 7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax 7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both the sides and has held as under: the sides and has held as under: "65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether "65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether "65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering or invalid notice considering 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be considered and for that each matter has to be considered considered and for that each matter has to be considered considered and for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case conside separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date ring the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not. Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not. 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014 2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the concerned, the period of three years from the end of the period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of 30.06.2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of 30.06.2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01. the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 'surviving time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex 'surviving time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex 'surviving time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment the Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017 2017 and 2017-2018 are concerned, the notice 2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be considered 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be considered 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the ment year as three years would complete within the ment year as three years would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as to whether the impugned notices under to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act section 148 of the Act
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 6 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra): case of Rajeev Bansal (supra):
SCANO AY Date of notice No of days of Date of providing Date of providing under section surviving time information under section information under section 148 under available till 148A(b) TOLA 30.06.2021 6387/2023 2013-2014 2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022 26.05.2022
5688/2023 2014-2015 2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022 23.05.2022
22260/2022 2016-2017 2017 30.06.2021 1 23.05.2022 23.05.2022
996/2023 2017-2018 2018 30.06.2021 1 24.05.2022 24.05.2022
SCA NO Due date of Due date of Date of reply:- Date of order Last date for issuance Last date for issuance filing reply filing reply under section of notice under section of notice under section 148A(d) and 148 as per 148 as per surviving notice under time: section 148:- 6387/2023 09.06.2022 09.06.2022 04.06.2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022 22.06.2022
5688/2023 06.06.2022 06.06.2022 - 27.07.2022 27.06.2022 27.06.2022
22260/2022 07.06.2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022 14.06.2022
996/2023 11.06.2022 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022 18.06.2022
It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would be invalid notices. lid notices.
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 7 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
69.The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act 69.The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act 69.The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also no orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also no orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive survive survive and and and are are are accordingly, accordingly, accordingly, quashed quashed quashed and and and set set set aside. aside. aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs." 8. In the facts of the case, the respondent Assessing Office ts of the case, the respondent Assessing Office has ts of the case, the respondent Assessing Office provided information pursuant to the directions provided information pursuant to the directions issued issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 01.06.2022 and therefore, considering 15 days' time to file reply 01.06.2022 and therefore, considering 15 days' time to file reply 01.06.2022 and therefore, considering 15 days' time to file reply by the assessee, the by the assessee, the due date would be 15.06.2022. The due date would be 15.06.2022. The petitioner filed reply on 16.06.2022. The order under section petitioner filed reply on 16.06.2022. The order under section petitioner filed reply on 16.06.2022. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act as well as notice under section 148 of the Act 148A(d) of the Act as well as notice under section 148 of the Act 148A(d) of the Act as well as notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering the period of was issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering the period of was issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering the period of limitation from the date of issu limitation from the date of issuance of notice under section 148 ance of notice under section 148 read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of notice under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of notice under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be 23. as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be 23.06.2022. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has verified the above dates and could not controvert the same. verified the above dates and could not controvert the same. verified the above dates and could not controvert the same. 10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as the said notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of d notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of d notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the impugned notice having been issued beyond the Therefore, the impugned notice having been issued beyond the Therefore, the impugned notice having been issued beyond the 'surviving time' would be invalid notice as held 'surviving time' would be invalid notice as held by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the following of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the following paragraph no. 114 (g) and (h) of the judgment: paragraph no. 114 (g) and (h) of the judgment: "114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: "114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: "114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: XXX (g) The time during which the show (g) The time during which the show-cause notices were deemed cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to the assessees in terms of the directions issued by this court in ees in terms of the directions issued by this court in ees in terms of the directions issued by this court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023)
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 8 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
1 SCC 617.], and the period of two weeks allowed to the 1 SCC 617.], and the period of two weeks allowed to the 1 SCC 617.], and the period of two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show assessees to respond to the show-cause notices; and (h) The Assessing Officers we (h) The Assessing Officers were required to issue the re required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with the tax Act read with the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. All notices issued b Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. All notices issued beyond the eyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside." surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside." surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside." 12. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 12. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 12. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all consequential proceedings are also quashed consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside.” 3.1 The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the notice unsel for the assessee contended that the notice unsel for the assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before 04.06.2022, whereas, in fact, it was issued only on 30.07.2022 — 04.06.2022, whereas, in fact, it was issued only on 30.07.2022 04.06.2022, whereas, in fact, it was issued only on 30.07.2022 thereby resulting in a delay of fifty thereby resulting in a delay of fifty-six days. It was further six days. It was further submitted that, reckoning from two weeks after the date of receipt hat, reckoning from two weeks after the date of receipt hat, reckoning from two weeks after the date of receipt of the assessee’s response (stated to be 03.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 of the assessee’s response (stated to be 03.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 of the assessee’s response (stated to be 03.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 respectively), the time available to the Assessing Officer under the respectively), the time available to the Assessing Officer under the respectively), the time available to the Assessing Officer under the surviving period stood exhausted. It was also urged that the surviving period stood exhausted. It was also urged that the surviving period stood exhausted. It was also urged that the assessee’s submissions on merits were not duly considered by the essee’s submissions on merits were not duly considered by the essee’s submissions on merits were not duly considered by the learned CIT(A).
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and considering that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the considering that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the considering that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the assessee’s final reply and its acknowledgment in the assessment assessee’s final reply and its acknowledgment in th assessee’s final reply and its acknowledgment in th records requires verification, we are of the considered view that the records requires verification, we are of the considered view that the records requires verification, we are of the considered view that the matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. Keeping in matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. view the contention of the assessee that his submission on merit view the contention of the assessee that his submission view the contention of the assessee that his submission gly set aside the were not considered by the ld CIT(A), were not considered by the ld CIT(A), we accordingly set aside the
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 9 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to his file, with a direction to examine the issue of the matter to his file, with a direction to examine the issue of the matter to his file, with a direction to examine the issue of limitation in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajiv limitation in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in limitation in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bansal & Others (supra), after verifying th (supra), after verifying the relevant records and e relevant records and affording due opportunity to both sides. The learned Commissioner affording due opportunity to both sides. The learned Commissioner affording due opportunity to both sides. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall also (Appeals) shall also after considering submission of the assessee after considering submission of the assessee adjudicate upon the other other grounds simultaneously. 5. In view of the matter being restored to the file of In view of the matter being restored to the file of In view of the matter being restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, the other Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, the other Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, the other grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and need not grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and need not grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and need not be adjudicated at this stage. be adjudicated at this stage.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced by way display o pronounced by way display of result on notice board f result on notice board on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 10 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel ITA No. 272/SRT/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat ITAT, Surat
