Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its return for AY 2015-16 declaring a low income. Information was later received from a search operation indicating the assessee had taken accommodation entries totaling Rs. 64,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under section 148 was issued.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a Section 148 notice on 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation in light of Supreme Court rulings.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 149, 68, 143(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN , J.M. : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. 10.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the assessment order dated 23.05.2023 making addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act was confirmed.
2. The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the appellant/assessee company submitted its return of income in ITR-6 dated 31st October, 2015for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 22,480/-. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 2nd December, 2015 without modifying the return of income. Subsequently, an information was received that, a search & seizure operation conducted on 23.12.2019 at the premises of Joginder Pal Gupta in the case of DAG Group, he is found to be engaged in providing accommodation entries through various concerns floated for this purpose and the assessee was stated to the amongst the beneficiaries who has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 8,00,000/-; Rs. 15,00,000/-; Rs. 15,00,000/-; Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- from M/s. B.R. Buildtech P. Ltd.; M.s. RSKM Traders P. Ltd.; M/s. Bij Buildcon P. Ltd.; M/s. Anuj Buildcon P. Ltd. and M/s. MKR Trading P. Ltd. respectively totaling to Rs. 64,00,000/- during Financial Year 2014-15. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in this case on 30.06.2021. In compliance to the judgment dated Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. 04.05.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal and in accordance with the CBDT’s directions issued vide Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022, the assessee was provided with the information/material relied upon by this office which suggests that income for the relevant year has escaped assessment, and was given an opportunity as per the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee filed reply to the notice under section 148A(b) of the act and subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the act was issued on 25.07.2022 and in response to the notice u/s 148 of the act, assessee did not file any valid return. Hence, the assessment was completed u/s 148 of the Act making an addition of Rs. 64,00,000/-.
Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made show the assessment order.
4. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal, raising following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assesse 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by A.O despite approval by learned PCCIT being defective and mechanical in nature while approving notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by AO against the time barred notices issued u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 and time barred order u/s 148A(d) dated 25.07.2022 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by A.O without considering the objections raised by assessee regarding the validity of reopening of assessment during assessment stage.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by A.O without disposing off the objection raised by the assessee before him.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by A. O on account of loans amounting to Rs. 64,00,000 despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1001 and without providing opportunity of cross examination with the entry operator.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
5. We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. Sr. DR and also examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR has referred page No. 1 of the paper book filed before us containing the table for calculation of time barred notice Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. under section 148 of the Act. It was argued that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal” (Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 etc.) [(2024) 469 ITR 46. (SC)]. It was therefore argued that since neither AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the notice under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the assessment order be quashed.
We have also heard the Ld. DR who was supplied with the paper book, and after going through Page No. 1 containing the table for the calculation of time-barred notice under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. Sr. DR has submitted that the Bench may consider the submissions with respect to the applicability of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal case (supra) in its own discretion and has prayed for restoring the file to the AO for deciding the matter afresh.
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. Page no. 1 of the paper book containing the details in respect of notice dated 25.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act being time barred is extracted as under:
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Legal Ground No. 4, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)], the reassessment proceedings initiated under the old or un-amended provisions of section 148, read with the extensions granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), are without authority of law.
9.1 It was contended that for Assessment Year 2015-16, the limitation for issuance of notice under the amended provisions of section 148, as saved by the first proviso to section 149, expired on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to the old provisions by invoking TOLA. Admittedly, in the present case, the notice under section 148 pursuant to section 148A(d) was issued on 25.07.2022, well beyond the permissible limitation.
10. We have heard rival submissions of the parties including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notices under Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. Section 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice issued under section 148 on 25.07.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpreted the interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA.
11.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 25.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation.
Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. 11.2 We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in which one of us (Judicial Member) is part of the Bench, in Naresh Amratlal Shah vs. ITO Ward-27(2)(1) order dated 24/12/2025 wherein notices issued on 22.07.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajiv Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: - “4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the challenge to the legal ground assailing the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act beyond the limitation period. The controversy lies in a narrow compass—whether the notice issued under section 148 on 22.07.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 is barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (supra) has conclusively interpreted the interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. 4.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten- year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 22.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation.
Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. 4.2 We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including in Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain (supra) wherein notices issued after 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajiv Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: - “3. The Ld.AR argued and first took up the legal ground related to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and finally, the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice was issued under section 148 of the Act, the dates and events are tabulated as follows: - Sr.No. Particulars AY 2015-15 1 Original notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – Old Provisions 28/04/2021 2 Last date to issue notice under amended provision of the Act as 31/03/2022 per the 1st proviso to Section 149 of the Act. 3 Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of 04/05/2022 India vs Ashish Agarwal 4 Show cause notice was issued in accordance with the decision in 27/05/2022 the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and the appellant was granted time upto 10.06.2022. 5 Order passed by the Ld. JAO u/s 148/A(d) of the Act 22/07/2022 6 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – New Provisions. 22/07/2022 The Ld. AR, during the course of arguments, submitted that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2015-16 has been quashed by Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). The issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'B', in the case of ACIT, Circle 19(1) v. Manish Financial, in & 5050/Mum/2024, order dated 02.12.2024. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:
"6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case, the AO issued the original notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 and consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to the un-amended provisions of section 149(1) as has been confirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under-
Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of india, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e)***** (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;***** 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is borred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime,
The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped ossessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 7. This issue of notice under section 148 issued for 2015-16 being time barred is considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it is held that ******For the A.Y.2015-16, the Revenue itself has contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the notices issued on or after 01/04/2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. Here notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015-16 has been issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by limitation under the new provision of Section 149(1) and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly, all the notices are quashed being barred by limitation on the reasons given above and we are not going on the reasons given by the Id. CIT (A) for quashing the notice." 8. A combined reading of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of coordinate bench makes it Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. clear that the test for checking the validity of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for AYs 2021-22 or prior years is whether the period of six years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in that case the notice under section 148 becomes invalid. These observations also makes it clear that the time limit of ten years as per the amended provisions of section 149(1)(b) can be applied only prospectively. In assessee's case when we apply this test for AY 2015-16, the period of six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 is invalid since it is barred by limitation. Accordingly the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed.
9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time barred the other legal contentions raised by the assessee in the CO have become academic not warranting any adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed.
10. We have quashed the order of re-assessment for AY 2015-16 considering the legal contentions raised by the assessee in the C.O. therefore the appeals of the revenue for AY 2015-16 contending the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed."
The Ld. DR advanced arguments and filed written submission, which is taken on record. The Ld. DR placed reliance on paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts of the assessee's case are identical to those in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Manish Financial (supra), has also followed the said judgment. Although the Ld. DR has relied upon paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the said observation is not applicable to A.Y. 2015- 16. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the appellate order is hereby set aside, and the addition of Rs. 2,02,90,700/- made by the Ld. AO is deleted.
Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. 4.3 Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Virjinia Foods Ltd. v. ITO [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 626 (Bom)] has categorically held that notices issued for A.Y. 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 are invalid, taking note of the concession recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal (supra). The relevant finding of Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) [paragraph 19(1)] records the submissions made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India about the Revenue conceding that for the A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. However, it is his submission that in the operative part of the order in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) [paragraph 114 Conclusion], the Hon'ble Apex Court has not made any distinction in respect of reassessment notices issued for the A.Y.2015-16 and the assessment notices issued for any other assessment year. He, therefore, contends that as per his reading of the said order in Rajeev Bansal (supra), it appears that though a concession has been made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the A.Y.2015-16, the said concession does not appear to have been judicially recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He, however, fairly admits that the reassessment proceedings could not have been proceeded further as the order dated 9th May 2024 of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2023 has quashed and set aside the Notice dated 5th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act on two separate grounds one that it was time barred and the other being on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). The judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) is not yet set aside or modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Applicant/petitioner submitted that the issue of concession made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the A.Y.2015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case, came up for consideration before different High Courts where it is held that Notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 would be bad in law. In this regard he relied upon the following judgments:
(a) ITO v. Venkatlal lyyappa Rajana [2025] 178 taxmann.com 410 (Karnataka) [05-08-2025] (b) Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) [19-12- 2024] (c)Lalit Gulati v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (Delhi) [02-05-2025]
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have also perused the papers and proceedings. The Assessment Year involved in Writ Petition bearing No. 1428 of 2023 is A.Y.2015-16. The said Writ Petition [filed by the Assessee-Petitioner) was allowed on 9th May 2024 observing the following:-
"1 Counsel for Petitioners state that the issue in these petitions will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and ors., so also by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. Counsel for Respondents concurs.
Therefore, the notice dated 6th April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment orged is passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside."
Meanwhile, the Revenue in such similar matters had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders passed by several High Courts on several jurisdictional issues in relation to the re-assessment proceedings for A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y. 2017-18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court grouped together all such SLPs and the lead matter being Rajeev Bansal (supra)
Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. 12. During the course of hearing in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India made various submissions. What is important for our propose is paragraph 19(f) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the submission of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. It reads thus:-
19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a…… b…... f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or before 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA: g….. ….
13. Meanwhile, despite this Court quashing the re-assessment proceedings in Writ Petition bearing No. 1428 of 2023, the Assessing Officer continued with the re-assessment on the premises that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be applicable in the facts of the case of the Petitioner overlooking the crucial fact that it pertained to A.Y. 2015-16 for which a concession was made by the Ld. ASG. The Assessing Officer also completely overlooked the fact that in view of the decision of this court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), he could not have proceeded further.
Both the parties agree that in view of the decision of this Court in Hexanware (supra), the Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025 is bad in law. This leave us with a limited question as to whether, in facts of the present case, the re-assessment order passed on 3rd March 2025 under Section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961 is bad in law even as per the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).
As mentioned earlier, the Assessment Year involved is A.Y. 2015-16 and the Notice under Section 148 is undisputedly issued on 5th April 2022, which is after 1st April 2021. Therefore, the said re-assessment proceedings ought to have been dropped in view of the concession made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in paragraph 190) of the decision rendered Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. in Rajeev Bansal (supra). This has clearly been missed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also brought to our attention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC) (02-04-2025), wherein at paragraph 4 and 5 it was held as under: “4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus : “19.(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 20152016, all notices issued on or after April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."
5. As the Revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021."
Similarly, in ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P) Ltd. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 59625 of 2024], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition arising out of a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Rajastan High Court in R.K. Buildcreations (P) Ltd. v. Income- tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 475/462 ITR 478/298 Taxman 166 (Rajasthan)/DBC WP No. 14414/2022. It would be equally relevant to refer to the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced below:
Mittal Homes Pvt. Ltd. Having regard to the concession made by the petitioner Department in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754), this Special Leave Petition would not survive for further consideration. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
Thus, the Revenue has itself time and again reiterated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases that the Notice for reassessment issued under Section 148 on or after 1st April 2021 [in respect of A.Y. 201516] ought to be dropped as conceded in para 19(1) of the decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
Accordingly, we hold that the Notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015- 16 issued on 5th April 2022 was barred by limitation and ought to have been dropped pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). We also agree with the submission of both the parties, that the Notice issued on 5th April 2022 under Section 148 is also bad in law in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware (supra)” 4.4 Similar views have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)]. The reliance placed by the learned DR on paragraph 112 of Rajiv Bansal (supra) is misplaced, as the said observations do not dilute or override the clear concession and ratio applicable to A.Y. 2015-16. 4.5 In view of the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal (supra), and the consistent judicial view taken by the High Courts and Coordinate Benches, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 dated 22.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation and, therefore, without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. 5. Since the reassessment itself is annulled on jurisdictional grounds, the other grounds raised
Considering the above facts and circumstances and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Naresh Amratlal Shah (supra), we are of the opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 is barred by limitation as having been issued beyond the period specified u/s 149 of the Act. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 09 January, 2026