GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI V. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6790/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Gamnaram Okhaji Prajapati against the reassessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The primary contention was that the notices issued for reassessment were time-barred and not in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly following the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Assessee argued that the notices were issued under the old regime post the deadline of April 1, 2021, and thus were invalid. The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, which supported the Assessee's position that such notices issued after the specified date were not valid for the specified assessment years.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822769 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. vs CBDT, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v/s. ACIT, Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6790/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2015-2016) Gamnaram Okhaji Prajapati Room No.226, Ground Floor, Sahara Shopping Centre, Siiddik Road, Musafirkhana Mumbai – 400001. Maharashtra [PAN: BFTPP0328H] …………. Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (1)(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.535, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai - 400020. Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Dinesh Shah Shri Swapnil Choudhary Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 22.12.2025 23.12.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 23/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2015- 2016. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Notice under section 148 under old regime was issued on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 2 10th May 2021 and notice under 148A(b) (under new regime is issued on 28/05/2022 and notice u/s. 148A(d) as well as under section 148 was issued on 22/7/2022 issued by Jurisdictional Dy CIT Circle 1(2)(1) Mumbai for the A.Y. 2015-16 is time barred and consequential reassessment order passed u/s. 147 read with section 144, rws 1448 is invalid and be cancelled. 2. As per the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Deepak Steel and Powers Ltd. vis CBDT (2025) 476 ITR 369 i.e. any notice issued after 01.04.2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 is time barred further the benefit of relaxation under TOLA Act, 2020 is not available. Therefore the reassessment proceeding are barred by limitation and the assessment is liable to be declared null and void. 3.1 The reassessment notices for the A.Y. 2015-16 i.e. notice u/s. 148A(b) issued on 28/5/2022 i.e. notice u/s. 148A(d) as well as notice u/s. 148 issued on 22.7.2022 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. DY CIT Circle (1)(2)(1) Mr. H.S.Kelkar but as per section AO 151A as well as per CBDT instruction dated 29.3.2022 such notices are required to be issued by National Faceless Assessing Officer under the scheme framed by the CBDT and not by Jurisdictional Assessing officers. The re-assessment proceeding initiated and consequential reassessment proceeding initiated and consequential reassessment order passed u/s. 147 rws 144B & 144 is invalid and be cancelled. 3.2 The above view is confirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v/s. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 Bombay HC. The reassessment initiated u/s. 148A (b) 148A (d) & 148 and consequentially re-assessment done u/s. 147 rws 144 be declared null and void. 4. The Learned CIT (A) NFAC erred in law by not declaring the order null and void despite the correct legal position having been specifically brought to his notice. The order of AO was set aside. The CIT (A) NFAC ought to have cancelled the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s. 147 rws 144 rws 1448. The Appellant humbly prayed to the income tax appellant Tribunal to reassessment order passed u/s. 147 rws 144 rws 144B be declared null and void without prejudice to other grounds of Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 3 5. Notice u/s. 148 is invalid. The notice ought to have been issued under section 153C of the IT Act, 1961. 6. Prejudice to other grounds of Appeal. No addition can be done u/s. 69A of IT Act, 1961 and question of applicability of section 115BBE is not possible. The applicant is income is of business and commission service charges are already declared under the head Income from Business. 7. The Returned income of the appellant is Rs.2,85,020. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal. The reassessment notice ought to have been issued by the income tax officer and not by the deputy commissioner of income. Thus notices and subsequently assessment made is invalid and without jurisdiction. 8. Interest charged under section 234 and interest charged under section 234B be deleted.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law since the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 24/05/2023. Since the said notice has been issued after 01/04/2021, the same is without jurisdiction and has to be withdrawn in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). In support the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed on record the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025] and judgment in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT (2025) 476 ITR 369. 8.1. The above legal plea made on behalf of the Assessee was opposed by the Learned Departmental Representative. The Learned Departmental Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 4 Representative vehemently contended that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) had no application to the facts of the present case since the notices under Section 148A/148 were issued in the present case under the new regime. 8.2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and have perused the material on record including the judicial precedents cited during the course of hearing. 8.3. On perusal of Paragraph 6 to 12 of the judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) it becomes clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with cases where notices issued under Section 148 of the Act as applicable prior to amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 [for short ‘the Old Regime’] between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021 which were quashed by the various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2023] 1 SCC 617, exercising powers under Section 142 of the Constitution, the Apex Court had directed that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Old Regime shall be deemed to notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the New Regime [i.e., Section 148/148A and other applicable provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021]. The Assessing Officer, in compliance with the aforesaid directions treated the notice issued under Section 148 of the Old Regime as notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the New Regime and passed order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the New Regime was issued by the Assessing Officer Act between July and September, 2022. In the aforesaid background following issues came had up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “B. Issues 18. The present batch of appeals gives rise to the following Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 5 issues: a. Whether TOLA and notifications issued under it will also apply to reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021; and b. Whether the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime between July and September 2022 are valid.” 8.4. While we find some merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had placed before us the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025]. In that case in identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was pleased to accept identical submission made by the Learned Authorised Representative appearing before us. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under: “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022 which is at page 52 of the paperbook. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:- 19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- a. ……………… e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income- tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 6 read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. “(emphasis supplied) 7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1 April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped. 8. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 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 and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, mare 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 April Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 7 1, 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.\" 5. 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 further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- “5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e). and (1) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned.\" 10. Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1\" April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 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 1\" April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5\" April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 8 notice of demand. penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered. 12. In light of this order, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the Appeal filed by him before the CIT (Appeals) within a period of 2 weeks from today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason, the present order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside, then the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) will automatically stand revived and the same shall be prosecuted on its own merits and in accordance with law.” 8.5. It is also relevant to note that in the subsequent decision in Deepak Steel and Power Limited v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169/476 ITR 369 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025 decided on 02/04/2025, the Supreme Court noted the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in relation to reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 while allowing a batch of petitions holding as under: \"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 and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2693, 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 April 1, 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.\" 5. 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 further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 9 the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition Nos. 2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed.\" 8.6. We have noted hereinabove that in identical set of facts the Jurisdictional High Court had quashed reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma (supra) and Deepak Steel and Power Limited (Supra) on the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 after 01/04/2021 by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Therefore, respectfully following the same we accept the legal plea made on behalf of the Assessee and quash the notice, dated 22/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 in the present case. Further, the consequent assessment proceedings and the Assessment Order, dated 24/05/2023, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 are also quashed and therefore, the demand raised upon the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 stands deleted. 4. In view of the above, Ground No. 1 to 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed while all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 5. In result, in terms of paragraph 9 above, the present appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 23.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Prabhash Shankar) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated :23.12.2025 Milan, LDC Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6790/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 10 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध ,आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "