Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

Kalpana Sanjay Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

…egime’ effective till 31/03/2021) was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on Assessment Year 2017-2018 30/06/2021. Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (Old Regime) was treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (‘New Regime’ introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021). Thereafter, The Assessing Officer passed Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice under Sect…

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…egime’ effective till 31/03/2021) was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on Assessment Year 2017-2018 19/05/2021. Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (Old Regime) was treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (‘New Regime’ introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021). Thereafter, The Assessing Officer passed Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice under Sect…

Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Senthilkumar Thangaraj ITO-WARD 42(3)(3), Mumbai 204, B-Wing, Eshwari Co-op Society, Room No. 610, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Rajendra Prasad Nagar, 60 feet Road, 41 to C-43, G-Block, BKC, Bandra Vs. Matunga Labour Camp, Mumbai (East), Mumbai-400051 400019. PAN/GIR No. ALNPT1800D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi : Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat – Sr. AR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06 /03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of…

Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/o Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AJUPB 7841H Appellant by : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the order dat…

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jignesh Natverlal Patel vs ITO Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, RTO Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 PAN:AAAPP1767B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Respondent by : Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR) Date of hearing : 10/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the asse…

Juee Sudhir Gore, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2017-18

…000/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Statutory notice was issued on 11.06.2021, which was treated as being issued under Section 148A(b) of the amended provisions of the said Act as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, 444 ITR 1 (SC) read with the Instruction No. 1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the CBDT. The assessee was provided with the reasons for reopening with the copy of the prior approval from the competent authority. In response to the notice, the AO has noted that no reply was filed. Accordingly, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 22.07.…

Bajranglal Bhawarlal Sharma, Borivali East vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…ction 148 of the Act (old regime) was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on 26/06/2021. Subsequently, in Assessment Year 2017-2018 compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021). The Assessing Officer also shared with the Assessee material/information on the basis of whic…

Sapna Umesh Dutta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 41(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: passing Order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice dated 31/07/2022, the Assessing Officer obtained approval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. The reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 23/05/2023, under Section 147 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 27/11/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred th

…ction 148 of the Act (old regime) was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on 31/05/2021. Subsequently, in Assessment Year 2017-2018 compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021). The Assessing Officer also shared with the Assessee material/information on the basis of whic…

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

…e old regime shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A(b) of the new regime”. (Emphasis Supplied) 8. In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that as per the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC), the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act (including those issued for the Assessment Year 2017-2018) were deemed to be notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act triggering the procedure prescribed under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01/04/2021. 9. The contention of the Assessee is that in the presen…

Ska Sales Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officsr, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

…e old regime shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A(b) of the new regime”. (Emphasis Supplied) 8. In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that as per the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC), the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act (including those issued for the Assessment Year 2017-2018) were deemed to be notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act triggering the procedure prescribed under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01/04/2021. 9. The contention of the Assessee is that in the presen…

Ramesh Amratlal Brahmbhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

…has directly considered the issue of limitation in reassessment proceedings arising out of notices issued under the old regime and converted into proceedings under the new regime pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1) and UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has categorically held that after applying the exclusion contemplated in Rajeev Bansal, the Assessing Officer would have only the surviving period available under the old regime and a notice issued beyond such surviving period would be barred by limitation. Therefore, the…

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jinalben Bhavikbhai Vora, Gujrat

Bench: the expiry of 6 years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-2014). Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India VS. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], communication, dated 26/05/2022, was sent to the Assessee intimating that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Fi

…2013-2014 on 17/06/2021 (i.e., after the expiry of 4 years but before the expiry of 6 years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-2014). Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], communication, dated 26/05/2022, was sent to the Assessee intimating that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021). The Assessing Offic…

M/S.Wellknown Polyesters Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

…the old regime on 09/04/2021, to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the 4 I.T.A. No. 8704/Mum/2025 said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1. The Revenue after following the procedure as per the new regime u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30/07/2022, under the new regime which was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4(3), Mumbai. 4.1. The Ld.AR submitted that the notice issued under section 148A(b) and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act are beyond t…

Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7880/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai GW-6051, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AABPC5342A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee Revenue Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala and Shri Saiprasad Ghosh, CAs : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR. : 10.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT…