LATE HARESH I CHHUGANI REPRESENTED BY SHIBANI SINGHANIA LEAGA HEIR OF ASSESSEE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

Date of hearing : 22/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 29/01/2026 O R D E R PerAnikesh Banerjee(JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 29/09/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned

Late Haresh I Chhugani Represented By Shibani Singhania Leaga Heir of Assessee Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’) order passed u/s147 r.w.s. 144Bof the Act, date of order 23/05/2023.

Late Haresh I Chhugani Represented By Shibani Singhania Leaga Heir of Assessee issued under section 148 dated 15/04/2021 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. 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 15/04/2021, 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 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 and additional ground are rendered academic and are kept open.