INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. LUNAR DIAMONDS, MUMBAI
Facts
The Assessee appealed against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act. The NFAC quashed these notices and the subsequent Assessment Order.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the limitation period for issuing notice under section 148 was extended due to TOLA. However, subsequent notices and orders were found to be contrary to Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to contradict the Commissioner's findings.
Key Issues
Whether the notices issued under section 148/148A and the subsequent assessment order were valid, considering the provisions of TOLA and relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.8240/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15
Income Tax Officer, Room Lunar Diamonds, 342, No.502, 5th Floor, Piramal Panchratna Building, Chambers, Lalbaugh, Parel, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra - Girgaon S.O., Mumbai – 400012. 400004. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAFL 6787 B Present for: Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026
O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.09.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the A.Y. 2014-15.
2 ITA No.8240/M/2025 Income Tax Officer
In the instant case, under the old law as applicable to the case in hand, Limitation period of 06 yrs for reopening of case u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act was available up to 31.03.2021; however, in view of TOLA the limitation time for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act was extended up to 30.06.2021. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act, on dated 28.06.2021.
The AO subsequently issued a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Acton dated 31.05.2022 and thereafter, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, on dated 24.07.2022, and ultimately issued a notice dated 25.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act, which resulted in passing the Assessment Order.
Thus, the Ld. Commissioner by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and following the judgment of the High Court Apex Court in the Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 457 ITR 1 (SC), quashed the notice dated 25.07.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act and the Assessment Order, passed in pursuance to such notice.
The Revenue therefore being aggrieved has preferred this appeal.
We have heard the parties and considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record, and do not find any reason/material and/or plausible cause to contradict the findings arrived at on this aspect, by the Ld. Commissioner in impugned order.
3 ITA No.8240/M/2025 Income Tax Officer
In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER M. Ranganath Vithal Sr. Private Secretary. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
