Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2015-16, which arose from an assessment order under sections 147, 144, read with 144B of the Income Tax Act. The core contention was that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 on 07.04.2022 was time-barred, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that all reassessment notices issued under section 148 on or after 1st April 2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 are invalid and must be dropped. Consequently, the notice issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 was found to be bad in law, and the assessment order passed under section 147 was declared void ab initio.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 on 07.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was time-barred and without jurisdiction, making the subsequent assessment order void.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 149, 151, 151A, 148A(b), Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC],passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16dated 12.03.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 26.02.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('the Ld. CIT'] has erred in not considering the ground of challenge to reassessment proceedings.
1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad ["The Ld. JAO"] has initiated the reassessment proceedings without fulfilling the preconditions required to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/s 148-151 of the Act.
1.3 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 148 issued by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation u/s 149 of the Act.
14 In the above circumstances, facts and in law, the Appellant submits that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is without jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE
2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151A 21 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 which is in non compliance to provisions of section 151A of the Act.
2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed.
3. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that notice u/s.148 was issued on 07.04.2022. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no.6 of the paper book which is notice u/s.148 of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that notice u/s.148 is issued beyond the time allowed in the section. Hence, it is bad in law. Ld.AR relied on the following decisions : 1. Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal - [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) Order dated 03.10.2024]
Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma v. ITO - [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay - HC) order dated 13.10.2025]
Manju Somani v. ITO [(2024) – 165 taxmann.com 675 (Delhi - HC) Order dated 23.07.2024]
Babu Hasan Shaikh v. ITO - [ITA No. 926 / Mum / 2025, Order dated 28.04.2025 (Mumbai - Trib.)] Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). Findings and Analysis: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 was issued on 07.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “ 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 SC2693/[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 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April1, 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."
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 4
6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed.
7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” Unqote.
The above referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurekumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held as under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd (supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 201516, all the notices issued on or after01.04.2021 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 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021.
It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 5 Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.”Unqote.
Similarly, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.” Unquote.
In the case of the Assessee, notice was issued on 07.04.2022 means after 01.04.2021. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court(supra) and Hon’ble High Court(supra), we hold that notice u/s.148 is bad in law, accordingly, the order u/s.147 dated 26.02.2024 is void ab initio. Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
8.1 Since we have quashed the Assessment Order, we do not intend to decide the remaining grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Accordingly, dismissed as unadjudicated. 6
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19 January, 2026.