INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. LUNAR DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8240/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 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

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.02.2026Pronounced: 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.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

The Revenue therefore being aggrieved has preferred this appeal.

6.

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.

7.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2026.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →