ITO, WARD-1, TIRUVANNAMALAI V. V. MANGALAKSHMI, TIRUVANNAMALAI

MA 171/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiruvannamalai, as the applicant, and Smt. V. Mangalakshmi, as the respondent. Initially, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order based on Supreme Court judgments that applied to notices issued under the old regime. However, the Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application arguing that the reassessment notice in this case was issued under the new regime and was valid as it was issued before the applicable six-year time limit. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument and recalled the earlier order, scheduling a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828573 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. vs. CBDT, Nisha Garg vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R. KUMAR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT िविवधया िचकासं/ M.A. No. 171/CHNY/2025 (arising in I.T.A. No.867/CHNY/2025) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiruvannamalai. vs. Smt. V. Mangalakshmi, 732, Mel Street, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai – 606 751. PAN: BLWPM 4395Q (अपीलाथᱮ/Applicant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮकᳱओरसे /Applicant by : Shri S. Praveen, JCIT ᮧ᭜यथᱮकᳱओरसे/Respondent by : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of hearing : 09.01.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R This Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is seeking to recall the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.867/CHNY/2025, dated 03.07.2025. 2. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.07.2025 had quashed the reassessment by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., vs. CBDT reported in [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC). The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), had made a concession in the aforesaid judgment that for the assessment year 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they do not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act 2020) [TOLA]. The concession made by the Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) read as follows:- “The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 16, 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.\" 6. In the instant case, the assessment year being 2015-16 and the notice u/s.148 of the Act having been issued only on 02.04.2022, the concession of Revenue will have application to the facts of the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court later in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., (supra), have held 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 v. Rajeev Bansal, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus : \"19. f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 16, 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 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 7. In view of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the concession of the Revenue since the notice has been issued under the New Regime beyond the time limit (notice issued on 02.04.2022), the reassessment order pursuant to the same is quashed. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Since I have quashed the reassessment order, the other grounds are not adjudicated. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Application. The prayer in the Miscellaneous Application is that the Tribunal has wrongly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., (supra) and quashed the reassessment proceedings. The relevant portion of the prayer of the Revenue in the Miscellaneous Application reads as follows:- 3. It is submitted that in the instant case, the JAO, following the new provisions of the Act w.e.f01-04-2021, issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 19-03- 2022 and passed order u/s 148A(d) on 02-04-2022 and issued notice u/s 148 on 02-04-2022. The six years time-limit for AY 2015-16, being 31-03- 2022, the ratio of Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal / TOLA are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The JAO, applying the new provisions of the Act w.e.f 01-04-2021, issued notice u/s 148A(b) before the six year time-limit of 31-03-2022 and continued the proceedings by passing order u/s 148A(d) and issuing notice u/s 148. 4. In view of the above, with due respect to Hon'ble ITAT, it is stated that the Hon'ble ITAT has incorrectly relied on the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and has held that since the notice has been issued under the new regime beyond the time limit (notice issued on 02-04-2022), the reassessment order pursuant to the same is quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 5. In the facts & circumstance, it is humble prayed that this Miscellaneous petition may kindly be taken on record. It is requested that the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No.867/Chny/2025 dated 03.07.2025 may kindly be amended to hold that notice is valid and adjudicate the issues involved in appeal on merits. 4. The Ld.AR on the other hand has raised objections to the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:- “2. The Hon'ble Tribunal by its order dt.03.07.2025 in ITA No. 867/Chny/2025 for assessment year 2015-16 has quashed the reassessment order following the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., Vs CBDT (2025) 476 ITR 369(SC) on the basis of concession of the Revenue that all notices issued on or after April, 2021 will have to be dropped; in the present assessee's case notice u/s 148 was issued on 02.04.2022, hence the Hon'ble Tribunal has quashed the notice and order pursuant thereto. 3. In the Misc. Application dated 14.11.2025 the Revenue has submitted that the ratio c Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal are not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case In the Supreme Court decision in Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), had been specifically conceded by the Department that for Assessment Year 2015-16, all the notices issued on or after April1, 2021 would have to be dropped under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. In the case of the assessee order u/s 148A(d) was issued on 02.04.2022 and a notice u/s 148 was issued on the same date. Admittedly, the assessee's case pertained to the year 2015- 16 and the notice is issued after April1, 2021. Therefore the Hon'ble Tribunal has correctly applied the said case law to the facts of the appellant's case and has quashed the order. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nisha Garg Vs Union of India (2025) 481 ITR 257 (P&H). wherein the Court under similar fact situation following Rajeev Bansal's case has decided the issue in assessee's favour. Hence the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.” Printed from counselvise.com 5 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Tribunal by relying on the above two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the concession of the Revenue in the said case had quashed the reassessment order. Since the reassessment order was quashed on legal ground, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the other legal grounds or the grounds on merits. In the case of UOI vs Rajeev Bansal, (supra), one of the issues for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, (TOLA) overrides Income-tax Act to extent of relaxing time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice u/s 148 which fell for completion from 20-3- 2020 to 31-3-2021, till 30-6-2021. The notifications dated 31-3-2021 and 27-4-2021 issued by the Central Government under section 3(1) of TOLA contained an explanation declaring that the provisions under the old regime shall apply to the reassessment proceedings initiated under them. Thus, the notifications directed the assessing officers to apply the provisions of the old regime for reassessment notices issued after 1-4-2021. The assessing officers accordingly issued reassessment notices between 1-4-2021 and 30-6-2021 by relying on the provisions under section 148 of the old regime. These reassessment notices were challenged by the assessees before Printed from counselvise.com 6 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 various High Courts, on the ground that such notices were not valid in view of amended provisions of the Act w.e.f 01-04-2021. 6. Before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case, the Revenue submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 arid 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under section 148 of the new regime between July and August. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal. Thus, accepting such contention, the Hon'ble Apex Court, allowed the appeal of Revenue. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that TOLA overrides Income-tax Act to extent of relaxing time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice which fell for completion from 20-3-2020 to 31-3-2021, till 30-6- 2021, for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, wherever TOLA period prescribed is applicable (falling for completion from 20-3-2020 to 31-3-2021, till 30-6-2021). Printed from counselvise.com 7 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 7. Because of these facts only, the Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01-04-2021, will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA (the Revenue got benefit for many of the Ays where TOLA period is applicable). However, the present case is distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the JAO, following the new provisions of the Act w.e.f 01-04-2021, issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 19-03-2022 and passed order u/s 148A(d) on 02-04- 2022 and issued notice u/s 148 on 02-04-2022. The six years time- limit for AY 2015-16, being 31-03-2022, the ratio of Ashish Agarwal & Rajeev Bansal / TOLA are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The JAO, applying the new provisions of the Act w.e.f 01-04- 2021, issued notice u/s 148A(b) before the six year time-limit of 31- 03-2022 and continued the proceedings by passing order u/a 148A(d) and issuing notice u/s 148. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.867/CHNY/2025 is erred in following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and the concession of the Revenue in the said case. As regards the reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nisha Garg (supra) relied on by the Ld.AR in his written submission, the said case is distinguishable on facts since the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was considering the case where the notice was Printed from counselvise.com 8 M.A No.171/CHNY/2025 issued as per old regime where the TOLA extended time limit was applicable on the facts of the said case. Therefore, I recall the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.867/CHNY/2025 dated 03.07.2025 and post the case for fresh hearing. I make it clear that other legal grounds and grounds on merits, no decision is rendered. The Registry is directed to post the case for hearing on 05.02.2026. Since the date of hearing is mentioned in the MA order, no separate hearing notice need to issue to the parties. Hence, this order should also be construed as notice of hearing. 8. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 13th January, 2026 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Applicant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "