Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

469 ITR 46Supreme Court of India2024#72 most cited

What is Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal authority for?

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

713

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal · Section 148 notice limitation · Ashish Agarwal legal fiction · TOLA applicability · reassessment jurisdiction · time-barred notice · order without jurisdiction · Section 149 · Section 148A

Also reported as

167 Taxmann.com 70301 Taxmann 238

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 149Section 144BSection 250Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 149a(c)section 149a(d)section 149asection 151(i)section 149(1)(a)section 3(1)section 148a(a)section 148 noticesection 151(ii)section 149(1)section 149(1)(b)order under section 148a(d)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Raj Rani Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3418/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Raj Rani Gupta, vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), 506, 2nd floor, Delhi Sharap Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi (PAN: AEQPG5421B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CA & Ms. Shuriti Khandelwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2015-…

Mcg Manufacturing Co Private Limited, Zakir Nagar, South East Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1255/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1255/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Mcg Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd., 169, Sukhdev Vihar, New Friends Colony, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant S.O Zakir Nagar, Delhi 110025 Pan: Aajcm-4917-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Amit Goyal, Chartered Accountant & Ankit Garg, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Pranav Yadav, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That Appeal Of The Assessee Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Of India In The Case Of Union Of India Vs Rajeev Bansal 469 Itr 46 (Sc). He Further Placed Reliance On The Decision In The Case Of Communist Party Of India (Marxist)

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…(A)’] dated 20.01.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Pranav Yadav, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme of India in the case of Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC). He further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2 vs. Income Tax Department in WP(C) 9031/2023 dated 28.04.2025 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted t…

Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward- Hingoli, Hingoli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 781/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…d to follow the directions as provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Ashish Agrawal - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)] 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal ((2024) 469 ITR 46] while passing the order. 1.4 In the above circumstances, facts and in law, the Appellants submits that this case is not fit for initiation of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment order passed is illegal and deserves to be quashed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN…

Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1503/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Manish Jashwantrai Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhuta, Nashik Flat No-8, Pooja Apartment, Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik-422003 Maharashtra Pan-Aghpb1619F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " एस एम सी "न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.1503/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Manish Jashwantrai Vs ITO Ward-1(1), Bhuta, Nashik Flat No-8, Pooja Apartment, Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik-422003 Maharashtra PAN-AGHPB1619F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of : 08.09.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- The captioned appeal…

ITO-23.1.6, Mumbai vs. Ghevarchand Jethmalji Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3859/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Ms. Padmavathy S.: A.Y. : 2015-16 Ito-23(1)(6), Vs. Ghevarchand Jethmalji Jain 704, 7Th Floor, Safalya Bldg., Tarabag, Mumbai. (Appellant) Love Lane Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010. Pan : Aadpj2435M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri Harsh Kapadia &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 253ASection 68

…f the Act dated 24.05.2022. Finally, the impugned addition was made by the AO vide order dated 23.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 3. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46 (SC) has found that the notice seeking reopening having been issued after 01.04.2021 was bad in law. In that view of the matter, the appeal came to be allowed. Feeling aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal. 4. We have heard parties. Perused record. 5. The Revenue has raised the following grounds :- “1. “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the…

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 578/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Kapil Taneja DCIT Vs. 58, Cosmo Colony, Vaishali Circle-01, Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACRPT2364B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi,…

Clan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

ITA 2303/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHEΝΝΑΙ श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2303/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Clan Laboratories Private Limited, No. 5/A5, Third Cross Road, IT Park, Siruseri, Chennai 603 103. [PAN: AABCC0958K] v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N.A…

Bhuwaneshwar Shukla, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

ITA 142/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exe…

Bhuwaneshwar Shukla, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

ITA 141/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exe…

Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1, Beawer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash G Jhunjhunwala, CA (Thr. VH)For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69A

…2 2. Shambhavee Shashikant Kadam vs. NFAC 13-22 3. ACIT vs. Manish Financial 23-36 ITA No.5050 & 5055/Mum/2024 4. Ashok Amratlal Shah vs. ITO 37-49 ITA No.4286 - 4288/Mum/2024 5. Keshri Rice Industries vs. DCIT 50-77 6. Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal 78-119 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC) 11 Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO 6.2 The ld. AR of the assessee so far as the merits of the dispute has also placed on record the following evidence / records / decisions: S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO Notice u/s.148 dated 30/07/2022 1-2 1. 2. Order u/s.148A(d) dated 30/07/2022 3-6 3. Notice u/s.148A(b) dated 27/05/2022 7-11 4. Reply…

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

…cross with a judgement of the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed in ITA No. 3553/Mum/2024 wherein proceedings u/s 147/148 were quashed by the Hon'ble Bench by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46). As the appellant also relied on this very judgment to argue that the second notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 28.07.2022 was issued beyond the extended time permissible (28 days from 16.06.2022) i.e. beyond 14.07.2022. This was in addition to our objection that no time limit was expiring between 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021 and…

Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (4), Raipur

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 122/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exe…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata vs. Khatu Niketan Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR
Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.944/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2013-2014) Income Tax Officer, Vs Khatu Niketan Private Limited, Ward-10(2), Kolkata GPO 27, Brabourne Road, Mezzanine Floor, Narayani Building Kolkata-700001 PAN No. : AAECK 2891 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, AR सुनवाई की…

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Jain HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3614/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer, Ward – V/S. Manoj Jain Huf, 703, 42(1)(3), Room No. 735, 7 Th बनाम Gaurav Villa, Mahavir Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Nagar, Kandivali(West), To C-43, G Block, Bandra S.O., Mumbai – 400 067, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Maharashtra Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaihm4888E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshikha Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 68

…er while the ld.AR pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A), has rightly held the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022 to be barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and quashed the consequential impugned assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 30.05.2023.In this regard, a chronology of the notices/orders issued by the Ld. A.O. vis-a-vis the working of limitation as per the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Manoj Jain HUF India vs Rajeev Bansal (sup…

Abhishek Sunilkumar Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2809/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

…148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act (new regime) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 6 In this regard we deem it appropriate to refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: "74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old reg…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Usha Devi Singhania, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 270/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…by the A.O is not emanating from the statute, hence, the said observation is perverse and infructuous and does not contain legal validity. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Usha Devi Singhania, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 269/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…by the A.O is not emanating from the statute, hence, the said observation is perverse and infructuous and does not contain legal validity. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exe…

Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 672/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vinay Bhamore & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.672/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.183/3, Omkar Near S Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Ganga Hospital, A Ward Dudhali, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Asipv6553D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing None Shri Aknath Abhang – Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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.2015-16 Dated 21.01.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68

…48 was issued on 31.03.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. ITA No.672/PUN/2025 [A] Copy of the said notice has been submitted by the ld.DR for the Revenue. Order U/s.148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022. 4.1 Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uol Vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46(SC), Mr.N.Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: Quote, “a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or com…

Oveen Naveen Lewis, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 775/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Oveen Naveen Lewis Vs. Income Tax Officer, D 704, Neelkanth Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Business Park, Nathani Room No.608, 6th Road, Vidyavihar, Floor, Kautilya Mumbai-400086 Bhavan, C-41 to C- PAN:ADKPL9179Q 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri M. Subramaniam Respondent by Shri Krishna Kumar, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shantilal Chimanlal Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 6867/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Jeet Kamdar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 3(1)

…al – 3 on 28/07/2022. The challenge of the assessee is the invalid approval of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. We find that a similar quarrel was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/469 ITR 46 (SC), as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of getting approval from the appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to cases where the revenue has invoked the provisions of the Section 148A of the Act as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Ag…