INCOME-TAX OFFICER-23(2)(6), MUMBAI V. KUMAR ISHWARLAL DOSHI, MUMBAI

ITA 4241/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted the addition made on account of unexplained money received from two entities identified as bogus. The entities, Krishna Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Marine Gems, were linked to the Gautam Jain Group, which was under investigation for providing accommodation entries. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition, arguing that the CIT(A) did not appreciate the concrete reports from the DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai post-search and seizure. The assessee, Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi, countered that the reassessment notice was time-barred and thus invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 849143 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Ashish Agarwal v. Union of India, Ramniklal Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ram Balaram Buildhome (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. CIT, Mrs. Thulasidass Prabavathi v. CIT, Gurpreet Singh v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Question of law; Tax effect; Period of limitation; Accommodation entries; Time period of passing order; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E ” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.4241/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income-tax officer-23(2)(6) Room No.613, 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh, Mumbai- 400012 Vs. Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 2nd Floor 259, Johari Mension, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 PAN NO- ADXPD0393H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.383/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.4241/Mum/2025) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 2nd Floor 259, Johari Mension, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Vs. Income-tax officer-23(2)(6) Room No.613, 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh, Mumbai- 400012 PAN NO- ADXPD0393H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Department by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR. DR Date of Hearing : 09/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 25/03/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 7th April, 2025 passed Printed from counselvise.com by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi assessment year 201 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 2,15,0 of the Act, on account of un Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Maine Shri Gautam Jain Group?\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition, without appreciating the the action of the AO was based on the concrete report of DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai post search & seizure on Shri Krishna Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. controlled and operated by Shri Gautam Jain Group, of providing only accommodation was found to be one of the beneficiaries of such from these two bogus entities?\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition, without appreciating the assessee has failed to the parties as well as transactions, the onus is on the assessee to produce cogent 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the observations of t the case of Leena Pawar Tech Engineering, that there cannot be any d on the fundamental legal \"Bonafides \" or \" Genuineness\" of the share books of account and to pro satisfaction of the assessing officer. 5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 2,15,00,000/ 69A of the Act, on account of un Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Marine Gems, both Shri Gautam Jain Group?\" without a relied on the report of Inv authority of Income-Tax Department and the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transactions Shri Gautam Jain Group. Reliance i in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj (2022) 139 taxmann.com 352?\" Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2013-14. Grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- account of un-explained money received from the Kris Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Maine Gems, both have identified as bogus entities of Shri Gautam Jain Group?\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. has erred in deleting the addition, without appreciating the was based on the concrete report of DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai post search & seizure on Shri Gautam Jain Group, it was revealed that M/s. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Marine Gems, both are bogus entities ated by Shri Gautam Jain Group, involved in the business of providing only accommodation entries of un-secured loans and was found to be one of the beneficiaries of such loans of Rs.2, 15,00,000/ these two bogus entities?\" \"Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. has erred in deleting the addition, without appreciating the assessee has failed to established the creditworthiness and genuineness of arties as well as transactions, during the assessment proceedings, when the assessee to produce cogent evidences?\" The Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the observations of the Hon'ble ITAT, in Leena Pawar Tech Engineering, that there cannot be any d on the fundamental legal position that the onus is on the assessee to provide or \" Genuineness\" of the share application money credited in the of account and to prove the nature and source on the money to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 2,15,00,000/ A of the Act, on account of un-explained money received from the Krishna Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Marine Gems, both have identified as bogus entities of Shri Gautam Jain Group?\" without appreciating fact that Assessing relied on the report of Investigation Wing, which is premier investigation Tax Department and the onus is on the assessee to genuineness of the transactions made with the bogus entities of Shri Gautam Jain Group. Reliance is placed on Calcutta High-Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj (2022) 139 taxmann.com 352?\" Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 2 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National d. CIT(A)] for Grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. u/s. 69A explained money received from the Krishna Gems, both have identified as bogus entities of n law, Ld. has erred in deleting the addition, without appreciating the fact that, was based on the concrete report of DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, Gautam Jain Group, it was revealed that M/s. Marine Gems, both are bogus entities involved in the business secured loans and assessee oans of Rs.2, 15,00,000/- case and in law, the Ld. has erred in deleting the addition, without appreciating the fact the itworthiness and genuineness of during the assessment proceedings, when he Hon'ble ITAT, in Leena Pawar Tech Engineering, that there cannot be any dispute position that the onus is on the assessee to provide application money credited in the money to the and in law, the erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- u/s explained money received from the Krishna identified as bogus entities of ppreciating fact that Assessing Office vestigation Tax Department and the onus is on the assessee to made with the bogus entities of Court decision Printed from counselvise.com 6. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the CIT(A) ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decisions in Durga Prasad More(1971) (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), rendere under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the before it by applying circumstances which exercise had been done by the 7. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the CIT(A) ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decisions in Roshan Di Hat where under it was held th could not establish the genuineness of the lender assessee likewise failed to prove that the real money of their own?\" 8. The appellant craves, leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. 9. The tax effect involved in this case is Rs.66,40,989/ prescribed limit mentioned in the CBDT's Circular F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007 ITJ(Pt) amended vide No. 09/2024 under one of the exceptions specified in the CBDT's Dated. 15.03.2024, wherein it is stated tha Evasion\" including cases of accommodation entries, the decisio appeal/ SLP shall be taken on merit without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limit.” 3. Ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection a reproduced as under: “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time therefore, the impugned asse the Income Tax Act, 1961 i 2) On the facts and circumstances of Assessing Officer has erred in is 29/07/2022 which is not in com of Rajeev Bansal (301 Taxman 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the cross delayed by 130 days. It was explained, by way of an affidavit, that although the assessee had initially engaged a counsel to examine the feasibility of filing a cross Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the rasad More(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surro h exercise had been done by the Assessing Officer?\" \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the ions in Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), where under it was held that the addition of cash credits where the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the lender's capacity. Here, the likewise failed to prove that the entry-providing companies had any real money of their own?\" The appellant craves, leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new which may be necessary. The tax effect involved in this case is Rs.66,40,989/-, which is above the mit mentioned in the CBDT's Circular F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007 TJ(Pt) amended vide No. 09/2024 dated.17.09.2024 and this case also falls eptions specified in the CBDT's Circular No .05/2024 Dated. 15.03.2024, wherein it is stated that in cases involving \"Organized Evasion\" including cases of accommodation entries, the decisio taken on merit without regard to the tax effect and the Ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection a reproduced as under: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the case u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred as per the provision of e impugned assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and required to be quash. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice U/s 148 of the Act 29/07/2022 which is not in compliance to the decision of Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (301 Taxman 238) (SC).” At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the cross-objection filed by the assessee was delayed by 130 days. It was explained, by way of an affidavit, that although the assessee had initially engaged a counsel to examine ility of filing a cross-objection, the said counsel failed to Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 3 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 in law the order of ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where evidence the test of human probabilities, the surrounding Assessing Officer?\" in law the order of ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the (Supreme Court) (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), where the assessee 's capacity. Here, the providing companies had any The appellant craves, leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new , which is above the mit mentioned in the CBDT's Circular F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007- dated.17.09.2024 and this case also falls Circular No .05/2024 cases involving \"Organized Tax Evasion\" including cases of accommodation entries, the decision to file taken on merit without regard to the tax effect and the Ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection are 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the reopening the case u/s. 147 of the barred as per the provision of the Act, r.w.s 147 of the case as well as in law, the Learned of the Act dated on Court in case At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee objection filed by the assessee was delayed by 130 days. It was explained, by way of an affidavit, that although the assessee had initially engaged a counsel to examine objection, the said counsel failed to Printed from counselvise.com pursue the matter. Consequently, the assessee engaged a new counsel, who, upon examining the records, advised filing of the cross-objection on a legal issue, resulting in the delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. In our view, the assessee has demonstrated a sufficient and bona fide cause on account of circumstances beyond the effective control of the assessee. It is well settled that a liberal approach is warranted in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations. Accordingly, the delay of 130 days in filing the cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 6. The cross-objection raises a pure question of law, namely, whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of Ind taxmann.com 70/469 ITR 46/301 Taxman 238 (SC). learned counsel for the assessee furnished a chronological chart of events demonstrating that: (i) the original notice under the erstwhile provisions was issued on 25.06.2021 wit (ii) the balance (surviving) period available to the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under the new regime was only 5 days; (iii) notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 28.05.2022; Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 pursue the matter. Consequently, the assessee engaged a new counsel, who, upon examining the records, advised filing of the objection on a legal issue, resulting in the delay. onsidered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. In our view, the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and bona fide cause for the delay. The lapse occurred on account of circumstances beyond the effective control of the is well settled that a liberal approach is warranted in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations. Accordingly, the delay of 130 days in filing the cross-objection is condoned, and the cross tion is admitted for adjudication. objection raises a pure question of law, namely, whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/469 ITR 46/301 Taxman 238 (SC). learned counsel for the assessee furnished a chronological chart of events demonstrating that: the original notice under the erstwhile provisions was issued on 25.06.2021 within the extended time under TOLA; the balance (surviving) period available to the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under the new regime was only notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 28.05.2022; Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 4 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 pursue the matter. Consequently, the assessee engaged a new counsel, who, upon examining the records, advised filing of the objection on a legal issue, resulting in the delay. onsidered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. In our view, the assessee has demonstrated for the delay. The lapse occurred on account of circumstances beyond the effective control of the is well settled that a liberal approach is warranted in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations. Accordingly, the delay of , and the cross- objection raises a pure question of law, namely, whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble ia v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/469 ITR 46/301 Taxman 238 (SC). The learned counsel for the assessee furnished a chronological chart the original notice under the erstwhile provisions was hin the extended time under TOLA; the balance (surviving) period available to the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under the new regime was only notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 28.05.2022; Printed from counselvise.com (iv) the assessee filed its reply on 06.07.2022; and (v) consequently, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued within 5 days from 06.07.2022, i.e., on or before 11.07.2022. 6.1 The ld Counsel submitted that was issued on 21.07.2022, limitation period. 6.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramniklal Shah v. Assistant reported in [2025] the Hon’ble High Court referred to the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra.). The relevant part of decision of Hon’ble High Court (supra reproduced as under: “20. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. In view of the controversy involved, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajeev Bansal (supra) which held as under: “….49. The first proviso to Section i49(i)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment yea notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new tim prescribed under section 149(1) (b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012 expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012 escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation o assesses. …..105. A direction issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 is an order of a court. The third proviso to Section 149 of the Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 the assessee filed its reply on 06.07.2022; and consequently, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued within 5 days from 06.07.2022, i.e., on or before 11.07.2022. The ld Counsel submitted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 21.07.2022, , which is beyond the permissible Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramniklal Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income 180 taxmann.com 642 (Bombay) the Hon’ble High Court referred to the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra.). The relevant part of decision of Hon’ble High Court (supra reproduced as under: 20. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. In view of the controversy involved, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) which held as under:- “….49. The first proviso to Section i49(i)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1) (b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten years period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012 escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the …..105. A direction issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 is an order of a court. The third proviso to Section 149 of the Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 5 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 consequently, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued within 5 days from 06.07.2022, i.e., on or the notice under Section 148 beyond the permissible Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hitesh Commissioner of Income-tax 180 taxmann.com 642 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court referred to the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra.). The relevant part of decision of Hon’ble High Court (supra) is 20. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. In view of the controversy Supreme Court in “….49. The first proviso to Section i49(i)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime 2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of e limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1) (b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For 2013, the ten years period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits f Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the …..105. A direction issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 is an order of a court. The third proviso to Section 149 of the Printed from counselvise.com new regime provides that the per 148A are stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded for computation of limitation. During the period from the date of issuance of the deemed notice under section 148A(b) and the date of th Ashish Agarwal (supra), the assessing officers were deemed to have been prohibited from passing a reassessment order. Resultantly, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed by order of this court from the date of their issuance (somewhere form 1 April 2021 till 30 June 2021) till the date of decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra), that is, 4 May 2022. 106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and material assesses within thirty days form the date of the judgment. A show cause notices is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b)only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing of fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the direction issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 39 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. 107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices under section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes “the time or extended time allowed to the assessee.” Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show ca the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuan the deemed notices between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA 108. The Income issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion form 20 March 2020 to 31 March 202 notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notice regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow form the fiction. East Dwellings Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed: “If you are bidden to treat an imaginary State of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative State of affairs had Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 new regime provides that the period during which the proceedings under section 148A are stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded for computation of limitation. During the period from the date of issuance of the deemed notice under section 148A(b) and the date of the decision of this court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the assessing officers were deemed to have been prohibited from passing a reassessment order. Resultantly, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed by order of this court from the date of eir issuance (somewhere form 1 April 2021 till 30 June 2021) till the date of decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra), that is, 4 May 2022. 106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and materials relief upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirty days form the date of the judgment. A show cause notices is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b)only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. Due to the legal fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the direction issued by t in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 39 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. 107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed s to respond to the show cause notices under section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes “the time or extended time allowed to the assessee.” Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notices has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation of limitation given the third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuan the deemed notices between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to respond to the show cause notices b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA 108. The Income-tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion form 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow form the fiction. East Dwellings Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed: “If you are bidden to treat an imaginary State of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine the consequences and incidents which, if the putative State of affairs had Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 6 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 iod during which the proceedings under section 148A are stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded for computation of limitation. During the period from the date of issuance of the e decision of this court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the assessing officers were deemed to have been prohibited from passing a reassessment order. Resultantly, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed by order of this court from the date of eir issuance (somewhere form 1 April 2021 till 30 June 2021) till the date of 106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers s relief upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirty days form the date of the judgment. A show cause notices is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b)only if it is supplied along with ficer. Due to the legal fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the direction issued by t in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 39 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to 107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed s to respond to the show cause notices under section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes “the time or extended time allowed to the assessee.” Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the use notices has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices. This period of two of limitation given the third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notices between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion form 1, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these s under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow form the fiction. East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed: “If you are bidden to treat an imaginary State of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine the consequences and incidents which, if the putative State of affairs had Printed from counselvise.com in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed form or accompanied it.”] Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or computing the number of days between the date for issuance of the deemed notices and 30 June 2021. 109. If this Court had not created the legal fiction and the original reassessment notices were validly issued ac regime, the notices under section 148 of the new regime would have to be issued within the time limits extended by TOLA. As a corollary, the reassessment notices to be issued in pursuance of the deemed notices must also time limit surviving under the Income gives full effect to the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra0 and enables both the assesses and the Revenue to obtain the benefit of all consequences flowing from the fiction. 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 149 notices under the old regime [which is also the dat issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgement, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, he period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded i 111.The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under section 149A(d) bases on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 149 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking f receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty form 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notices under section 14 regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including section 2149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013 2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices und the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed form or accompanied it.”] Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date for issuance of the deemed notices and 30 June 2021. 109. If this Court had not created the legal fiction and the original reassessment notices were validly issued according to the provisions of the new regime, the notices under section 148 of the new regime would have to be issued within the time limits extended by TOLA. As a corollary, the reassessment notices to be issued in pursuance of the deemed notices must also time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. This construction gives full effect to the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra0 and enables both the assesses and the Revenue to obtain the benefit of all flowing from the fiction. 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 149 notices under the old regime [which is also the dat issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgement, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, he period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149. 111.The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under section 149A(d) bases on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for assessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA, was available to icers to issue the reassessment notices under section 149 of the 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty form 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notices under section 14 regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under section 2149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017 2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 7 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed form or accompanied it.”] Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under section 148 of balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date for issuance of the deemed 109. If this Court had not created the legal fiction and the original cording to the provisions of the new regime, the notices under section 148 of the new regime would have to be issued within the time limits extended by TOLA. As a corollary, the reassessment be within the tax Act read with TOLA. This construction gives full effect to the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra0 and enables both the assesses and the Revenue to obtain the benefit of all 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 149 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgement, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, he period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show n terms of the third proviso to Section 149. 111.The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under section 149A(d) bases on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for assessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time tax Act read with TOLA, was available to icers to issue the reassessment notices under section 149 of the 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under section or the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days form 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under section 2149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the 2017, and 2017- er section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices Printed from counselvise.com within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority spec section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time 6.3 Thereafter, Hon’ble High Court (supra) referred to the o decisions on the issue in dispute. For ready reference, said part of decision is reproduced as under: “21. Subsequently several High Courts have considered the judgment in Rajeev Bansal while dealing with the issue of the surviving period. The Delhi High Court in Ram Balaram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (supra) while considering the issue held as under:- \".... 65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013 framework, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant as 66. By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 were Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 67. Additionally, the period from the date of deci till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had i notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme (supra). 68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 the period of two weeks excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its re Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation beg 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty limitation left on the date of commencement of th which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148 the Act within the said twenty under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thi Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority spec section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred.” Thereafter, Hon’ble High Court (supra) referred to the o decisions on the issue in dispute. For ready reference, said part of decision is reproduced as under: 21. Subsequently several High Courts have considered the judgment in Rajeev Bansal while dealing with the issue of the surviving period. The Delhi High Court in Ram Balaram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (supra) while considering the \".... 65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 under the statutory rk, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 66. By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 were extended till 30.06.2021. Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is required to be excluded by virtue of o to Section 149(1) of the Act. 67. Additionally, the period from the date of decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra) till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had i notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 the period of two weeks -is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date. 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148 the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022. Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 8 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notices issued beyond the Thereafter, Hon’ble High Court (supra) referred to the other decisions on the issue in dispute. For ready reference, said part 21. Subsequently several High Courts have considered the judgment in Rajeev Bansal while dealing with the issue of the surviving period. The Delhi High Court in Ram Balaram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (supra) while considering the \".... 65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of 14 under the statutory rk, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six 66. By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which extended till 30.06.2021. nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the date of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is required to be excluded by virtue of sion in Ashish Agarwal (supra) till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had issued the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Court in Rajeev Bansal In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The sponse to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the an running from that date. 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days e reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated Printed from counselvise.com 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation. 22. The Gujarat High Court in Dhanraj Govindram Kella (supra) while considering the issue held as under: \".65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be considered and for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the assessee and date of passing and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case or not. 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013 period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 'surviving t Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 unde would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the perio 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid notice or not in vie Rajeev Bansal (supra): Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is eyond the period of limitation. 22. The Gujarat High Court in Dhanraj Govindram Kella (supra) while considering the issue held as under:- \".65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case ofRajeev Ban 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 .2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 'surviving time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment Years 2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 unde would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the perio 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 9 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is 22. The Gujarat High Court in Dhanraj Govindram Kella (supra) while \".65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying of order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within 'surviving ofRajeev Bansal (supra) 2015 are concerned, the period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 .2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is ime' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment Years 2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the period of 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be w of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Printed from counselvise.com 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would be invalid notices. \" 23. The Madras High Court in Mrs. Thulasidass Prabavathi (supra), while considering the issue held as under: \"....17. Dealing with almost an identical s Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the Delhi High Court quashed the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings. Si laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 is a settled law, it is binding on this Court. I am therefore unable to take a contra view in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693.\" 24. Based on the above, we observe that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Hence, the submission of the Respondent that a period of ten years is available to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act is misconceived. 25. Further, we find that the second ground was urged before this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) where the Court records the argument of the Respondent [in paragraph 7(vii)] that the order under Section 148A(d) is to be passed within one month from the end o been received, specifically rejected the same in paragraph 18 as Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the Act. The said paragra \".....18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A(d) does no terms of Section 149 of the IT Act. The entire process under Section 148A(a) to (d) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 has to be completed within the total time available in terms of Section 149 under Section 148. A notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act which is beyond the time line stipulated under Section 149(1) is non invalid. The timeline under Section 148A(d) is for the Assessing comply with the stipulations and the streamlining contemplated under Section 148A. This is primarily to bring in transparency and accountability into the system and is intended for the benefit of the assessees. However to suggest Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of 'surviving time' as per the le Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would be invalid notices. \" 23. The Madras High Court in Mrs. Thulasidass Prabavathi (supra), while ering the issue held as under:- \"....17. Dealing with almost an identical situation pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the Delhi High Court quashed the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings. Since the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 is a settled law, it is binding on this Court. I am therefore unable to take a contra view in the light of the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC 24. Based on the above, we observe that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice relying on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Hence, the submission of the Respondent that a period of ten years is available to issue the notice under Section 148 of find that the second ground was urged before this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) where the Court records the argument of the Respondent [in paragraph 7(vii)] that the order under Section 148A(d) is to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the reply has been received, specifically rejected the same in paragraph 18 as Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the Act. The said paragraph 18 is reproduced hereunder: \".....18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the IT Act. The entire process under Section 148A(a) to (d) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 has to be completed within the total time available in terms of Section 149(1) of the IT Act for issuance of notice under Section 148. A notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act which is beyond the time line stipulated under Section 149(1) is non-complaint and invalid. The timeline under Section 148A(d) is for the Assessing comply with the stipulations and the streamlining contemplated under Section 148A. This is primarily to bring in transparency and accountability into the system and is intended for the benefit of the assessees. However to suggest Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 10 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of 'surviving time' as per the le Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, 23. The Madras High Court in Mrs. Thulasidass Prabavathi (supra), while ituation pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the Delhi High Court quashed the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued to nce the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 is a settled law, it is binding on this Court. I am therefore unable to take a contra view in the light of the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC 24. Based on the above, we observe that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant at the time of issuance of the notice relying on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Hence, the submission of the Respondent that a period of ten years is available to issue the notice under Section 148 of find that the second ground was urged before this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) where the Court records the argument of the Respondent [in paragraph 7(vii)] that the order under Section 148A(d) is to be f the month in which the reply has been received, specifically rejected the same in paragraph 18 as Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of ph 18 is reproduced hereunder:- \".....18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. t govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the IT Act. The entire process under Section 148A(a) to (d) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 has to be completed within the (1) of the IT Act for issuance of notice under Section 148. A notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act which is complaint and invalid. The timeline under Section 148A(d) is for the Assessing Officer to comply with the stipulations and the streamlining contemplated under Section 148A. This is primarily to bring in transparency and accountability into the system and is intended for the benefit of the assessees. However to suggest Printed from counselvise.com that Section 148A(d) extends the time limit under Section 149(1) and/or has a bearing on the time under Section 149(1) is a submission which is misconceived and lacks legal sanctity.\" 6.4 After considering the above decisions, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court(supra) held th Section 148 was to be issued within the surviving period from the date of filing of the reply by the assessee. Relevant part of the decision of Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “26. After considering the above remaining days for conclusion of Section148A(d) and issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act would be two days. In the present case, whichev days would expire on 10 June 2022 or 27 June 2022 respectively a therefore, the notice under time barred, inasmuch concur with the judgments of the co of the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (su Gujarat High Court in Dhanraj Govindram Kall the surviving period and quashed the Act passed beyond the surviving period. 7. We have carefully examined the legal position in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) various High Courts, including the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court. The law is now well settled that: (i) reassessment proceedings initiated under the old regime and saved by the judgment in Ashish Agarwal proceedings under the new regime; (ii) the available under the Act, read with TOLA, governs the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148; and (iii) such surviving period begins to run under Section 148A(b), and all procedural steps, including Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 8A(d) extends the time limit under Section 149(1) and/or has a bearing on the time under Section 149(1) is a submission which is misconceived and lacks legal sanctity.\" After considering the above decisions, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court(supra) held that notice under amended provision of Section 148 was to be issued within the surviving period from the date of filing of the reply by the assessee. Relevant part of the decision of Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: 26. After considering the above exclusion period, we observe that th remaining days for conclusion of the procedure for passing of an order in terms nd issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act would be two days. In the present case, whichever way we see it, the period of days would expire on 10 June 2022 or 27 June 2022 respectively a therefore, the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on 27 July 2022 is time barred, inasmuch as it is issued much after the surviving period. We judgments of the co-ordinate bench in Gurpreet Singh (supra), of the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (supra) and the in Dhanraj Govindram Kalle (supra) which have dealt with urviving period and quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act passed beyond the surviving period.” We have carefully examined the legal position in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal Ashish Agarwal (supra), as well as subsequent decisions of various High Courts, including the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court. The law is now well settled that: (i) reassessment proceedings initiated under the old regime and saved by the Ashish Agarwal (supra) are to be treated as under the new regime; (ii) the “surviving period” available under the Act, read with TOLA, governs the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148; and (iii) such surviving period begins to run after the assessee files its reply r Section 148A(b), and all procedural steps, including Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 11 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 8A(d) extends the time limit under Section 149(1) and/or has a bearing on the time under Section 149(1) is a submission which is misconceived After considering the above decisions, the Hon’ble Bombay at notice under amended provision of Section 148 was to be issued within the surviving period from the date of filing of the reply by the assessee. Relevant part of the decision of Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: exclusion period, we observe that the of an order in terms nd issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act would , the period of two days would expire on 10 June 2022 or 27 June 2022 respectively and, Section 148 of the Act issued on 27 July 2022 is surviving period. We ordinate bench in Gurpreet Singh (supra), pra) and the e (supra) which have dealt with issued under Section 148 of the We have carefully examined the legal position in light of the Rajeev Bansal and , as well as subsequent decisions of various High Courts, including the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court. The law is now well settled that: (i) reassessment proceedings initiated under the old regime and saved by the (supra) are to be treated as surviving period” available under the Act, read with TOLA, governs the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148; and (iii) such surviving after the assessee files its reply to the notice r Section 148A(b), and all procedural steps, including Printed from counselvise.com passing of order under Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148, must be completed within such period. 7.1 In the present case, the admitted factual position is that only 5 days of surviving limitation Officer. The assessee filed its reply on 06.07.2022. the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 11.07.2022. However, the notice has been issued on 21.07.2022, which is of said notice is available on paper book page no.21 7.2 The contention of the Revenue that extended timelines under Section 148A(d) would govern the limitation is untenable, inasmuch as the limitation is s interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. The entire process must be completed within the surviving limitation period, and any action beyond such period is without jurisdiction. In view of the for that(i) the notice issued under Section 148 is reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are in law and liable to be quashed. 8. Since the re-assessment proceedings itself have been held to be not sustainable in the merit are rendered adjudicating upon and dismissed as infructuous. Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 passing of order under Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148, must be completed within such period. In the present case, the admitted factual position is that viving limitation were available to the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed its reply on 06.07.2022. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 11.07.2022. However, the notice has been issued on 21.07.2022, which is clearly beyond the limitation period of said notice is available on paper book page no.21- The contention of the Revenue that extended timelines under Section 148A(d) would govern the limitation is untenable, inasmuch as the limitation is strictly governed by Section 149, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. The entire process must be completed within the surviving limitation period, and any action beyond such period is without jurisdiction. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that(i) the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are and liable to be quashed. assessment proceedings itself have been held to be not sustainable in law, the grounds raised by the R the merit are rendered academic only, hence we are not adjudicating upon and dismissed as infructuous. Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 12 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 passing of order under Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148, must be completed within such period. In the present case, the admitted factual position is that were available to the Assessing Consequently, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 11.07.2022. However, the notice has been issued on clearly beyond the limitation period. A copy -22. The contention of the Revenue that extended timelines under Section 148A(d) would govern the limitation is untenable, trictly governed by Section 149, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. The entire process must be completed within the surviving limitation period, and any action beyond such period is egoing discussion, we hold barred; (ii) the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are invalid assessment proceedings itself have been held to law, the grounds raised by the Revenue on academic only, hence we are not Printed from counselvise.com 9. In the result, whereas the appeal of the Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/03/2026 Ankit, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi ITA No. C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 In the result, cross-objection of the assessee is allowed appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ounced in the open Court on 25/0 Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Kumar Ishwarlal Doshi 13 No. 4241/MUM/2025 & C.O. No.383/Mum/2025 jection of the assessee is allowed /03/2026. OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "