NIKHIL RAGHUVIR KSHIRSAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7529/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2015-16)

Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar vs Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai 404, Neelesh Society, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund East, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- Mumbai-400081 400051 PAN:AYKPK2549N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., & Ms. Vinita Nara, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR Date of hearing : 28/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 57 (for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A), order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2015-16, date of order 12.11.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for

2 ITA 7529/Mum/2025 Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar brevity the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 06.10.2023.

3 ITA 7529/Mum/2025 Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the material available on record, and taken note of the judicial precedents. The assessee’s challenge is fundamentally on the jurisdictional ground namely, that the notice issued under section 148 dated 15/04/2022 is void ab initio, being issued beyond the period of limitation for A.Y. 2015-16, and squarely covered by the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in. Rajiv Bansal (supra) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Verjinia Foods Limited vs the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Kalyan W.P. No.1428 OF 2023, date of order 06/10/2025 and in Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs ITO WP(L) no. 32774 of 2025 date of order 13/10/2025. The legal position that emerges from these authorities is unambiguous & all reassessment notices issued for A.Y. 2015-16 on or after 01/04/2021 are barred by limitation and must be dropped, as they do not fall within the extended period permissible under TOLA. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has repeatedly applied this principle and quashed reassessment notices in identical fact situations. In the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 was issued on 15/04/2022, well beyond the legally permissible period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings lack jurisdiction from their inception. The Ld. DR, despite relying on the orders of the revenue authorities, was unable to produce any contrary decision to rebut the judicial precedents cited by the Ld. AR. In view of the above, the legal ground pertaining to the validity of the reassessment notice goes to the root of jurisdiction and is sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings. Once the notice itself is void ab initio, the consequent reassessment order cannot survive. Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO become purely academic and need not be adjudicated on merits. We therefore

4 ITA 7529/Mum/2025 Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar hold that the reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 is invalid, and the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto is liable to be quashed. As the issue is decided on the jurisdictional legal ground, the grounds on merits are rendered academic and are kept open.