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 366,314 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

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Pranavkumar Prafulchandra Vora, Gujrat

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7596/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 68

…section 151 of the Act, would be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records p…

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3Section 80CSection 80G

…section 151 of the Act, would be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records p…

Income Tax Officer, C R Building vs. Aggarwal Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5074/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, Vs. Aggarwal Alloy Steels Room No. 199F, Pvt Ltd., 1St Floor, C.R. Building, 204, 2Nd Floor, Abhinash I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 2 Mansio, Main Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 (Pan: Aadca6884C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, VS. AGGARWAL ALLOY STEELS ROOM NO. 199F, PVT LTD., 1ST FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, 204, 2ND FLOOR, ABHINASH I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 MANSIO, MAIN JOSHI ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-5 (PAN: AADCA6884C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And CROSS OBJECTION No. 3/DEL/2026 (AYR 2013-14) (IN ITA NO. 5074/DEL/2025) AGGARWAL ALLOY STEELS VS. ITO, PVT LTD., ROOM NO. 199F, 204, 2ND FLOOR, ABHINASH 1ST FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, MANSIO, MAIN JOSHI ROAD, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 KAROL…

Kanti Prasad Finvest Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 14(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2928/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…the surviving balance period. In this connection, not only the assessee challenged the notice u/s 148 of the Act as barred by limitation but also placed this particular aspect of the matter before us that in the case of Rajeev Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) in para 19, observed that the ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue had given an undertaking that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued for AY 2015-16 the contents whereof was duly recorded by the Coordinate Bench while dealing with an identical matter in the case Mohd. Alam Qureshi vs. ITO, ITANo.3986/Del/2025 for AY 2015-16 pronounced on 19.11…

Kanti Prasad Finvest Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 14 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…the surviving balance period. In this connection, not only the assessee challenged the notice u/s 148 of the Act as barred by limitation but also placed this particular aspect of the matter before us that in the case of Rajeev Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) in para 19, observed that the ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue had given an undertaking that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued for AY 2015-16 the contents whereof was duly recorded by the Coordinate Bench while dealing with an identical matter in the case Mohd. Alam Qureshi vs. ITO, ITANo.3986/Del/2025 for AY 2015-16 pronounced on 19.11…

Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, Beed vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.368/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, ITO,Ward-1(5), Aurangabad Adas Kaij, Beed-431517 Vs. PAN : CBJPD5458H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual) Department by : Shri Manish Mehta Date of hearing : 21-01-2026 Date of 12-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed…

Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3282/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, V The Income Tax Officer, 685/3, Anant Vashat, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Bjsps9226G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2026 आदेश/ 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.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…Ld.AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions : 3 ITA No.3282/PUN/2025 [A] 1. Decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of UOI v Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 dated 04 May 2022 2. Decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of UOI v Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 dated 03 October 2024 3. Decision of the Hon'ble Bom HC in the case of Gurpreet Singh v DCIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 673 4. Decision of the Hon'ble Bom HC in the case of Alag Property Construction (P) Ltd v ACIT (2025) 179 taxmann.com 578 dated 08 September 2025 5. Decision of the Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Soft Zone v DCIT (ITA No 724/PUN/20…

Neeta Bhambhani, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, (It), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 3124/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Adv. Ema Bindu, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R
Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

…irst proviso to Section 149(1), is not met. The notice, having been issued after the expiry of the time limit under the old law, is therefore invalid. 8.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 meticulously analyzed the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below- “45. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) provides thus: "149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, - (a) If three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment y…

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7421/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

…section 151 of the Act, would be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records p…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar vs. Tayal Sons Private Limited, Hisar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5576/DEL/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Vs. Tayal Sons Pvt. Ltd., Hisar 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar Pan: Aabct6693E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078489517(1), Dated 15.07.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset During The Course Of Hearing With The Able Assistance Coming From Both The Parties That There Arises The First & Foremost Issue Of Validity Of The Impugned Reopening Itself

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 3

…ava vs ITO, Ward 1(1), Delhi in Writ Petition (C) 5893/2023, dated 30.05.2025. 5.1.2 It is seen that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 03.04.2022. In a decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was record…

Gopal Krishan Bansal, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. ITO Ward -1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Sirhind

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and cross appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 614/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149

…1 in the case of the assessee is void-ab-initio as per binding judgments above, where in bench mark judgment of Hon'ble Apex court have been followed reported in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) [03-10-2024], considering the legal view appreciated by various courts, the whole assessment in the case of the assessee needs to be treated as void-ab-initio." 8.2 The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has also supported the above sequence of notices served upon the assessee, alongwith copies of judgements as cited supra, the relevant extract of…

Income Tax Office, Ward-I Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind vs. Gopal Krishan Bansal, Aggarwal Steel Tubes

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and cross appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149

…1 in the case of the assessee is void-ab-initio as per binding judgments above, where in bench mark judgment of Hon'ble Apex court have been followed reported in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) [03-10-2024], considering the legal view appreciated by various courts, the whole assessment in the case of the assessee needs to be treated as void-ab-initio." 8.2 The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has also supported the above sequence of notices served upon the assessee, alongwith copies of judgements as cited supra, the relevant extract of…

Rmkv Fashion Garments Private Limtied, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Cricle-1, Tirunelevli, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed & Stay Petition

ITA 394/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.394/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Stay Petition No.31/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Rmkv Fashion Garment Pvt. Ltd, The Dcit Circle – 1, (Now Merged With Rmkv Fabrics Pvt. Tirunelveli. Ltd,) 176F Trivandrum Road, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4023 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate & P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं सु"ी प"ावती एस, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.394/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Stay Petition No.31/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 v. RMKV Fashion Garment Pvt. Ltd, The DCIT Circle – 1, (Now Merged with RMKV Fabrics Pvt. Tirunelveli. Ltd,) 176F Trivandrum Road, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 627 003. [PAN: AAFCR 4023 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent…

Sulthankhan Amanulla, Dharmapuri vs. ITO Ward 1, Dharmapuri

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3455/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mrs. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 271B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3453 to 3455/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 v. Sulthankhan Amanulla, The ITO, 2/242, Kottai Street, Maidhen Nagar, Ward-1, Palacode, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri-636 808. [PAN: BRKPA 3224 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /R…

Impressive Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 7300/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 148ASection 151A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7299/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Impressive Trading Private v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward Limited बनाम 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, A/9 Blue Diamond CHS, 8 New Marine Lines, Mumbai Gilbert Hill Road, Andheri(W), – 400 020, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400058, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACI3690R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Ketan Vajani, CA Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR) Date of Hear…

Impressive Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 7299/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 148ASection 151A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7299/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Impressive Trading Private v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward Limited बनाम 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, A/9 Blue Diamond CHS, 8 New Marine Lines, Mumbai Gilbert Hill Road, Andheri(W), – 400 020, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400058, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACI3690R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Ketan Vajani, CA Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR) Date of Hear…

Impressive Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7298/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

…Page 2 ITA No. 7298, 7299& 7300/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Impressive Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai [A.Ys.] 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16.Since the issues are common and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. We take up appeal in ITA No. 7298/Mum/2025 first. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No.7298/MUM/2025 1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment by the ld. A.O.…

Nileshkumar M Bhalodi, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…ssment year (AY) 2015-16, got expired on 31.03.2019, as per amended section 149(1)(a) of the Act, as applicable from 01.04.2021. Therefore, we find that notice u/s 148 of the Act was beyond time allowed as held in the decision of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024. The revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision at Para ‘f’ therein, that for AY. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. 11. We note that even if the time limit of six years from the end of assessment yea…

Sanjaykumar Haribhai Parsana, Rajkot vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 596/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 250Section 69

…ssment year (AY) 2015-16, got expired on 31.03.2019, as per amended section 149(1)(a) of the Act, as applicable from 01.04.2021. Therefore, we find that notice u/s 148 of the Act was beyond time allowed as held in the decision of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024. The revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision at Para ‘f’ therein, that for AY. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. 11. We note that even if the time limit of six years from the end of assessment year…

Devanshi Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…s in accordance with the provisions of section 151. In this regard, the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of approval of the specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: "73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction…