JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 272/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, the appellant, contesting the validity of a reassessment notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant argued that the notice was barred by limitation and thus invalid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition made by the assessing officer, which included a substantial amount under long-term capital gains. The ITAT found that the notice was indeed issued beyond the permissible time limit as clarified by recent Supreme Court judgments, leading to the quashing of the notice and all related proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786118 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India and others Vs Ashish Agarwal, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Chaturbhai Mohan bhai Kalsariya vs ACIT, Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAMITA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 148; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(2), Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Surat-395001. PAN NO. BCZPP 8713 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal although the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T act, 1961 is barred by limitation and is therefore invalid in the eyes of law. Printed from counselvise.com 2. Even otherwise it is to state that the order passed by assessing officer is invalid as notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is quashed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court and the same has not been contested further in Supreme court by revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law R on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,51,65,000/ term capital gain without considering the facts submitted by assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),NAFC has erred in assessing officer in making addition u/s 50C without giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income 2. At the very threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee sought to raise an very validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was contended that, in the light of th Court in the case of Union (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) Others, (2024) 469 ITR 46(SC) Section 148 of the Income being issued beyond the period of limitation permissible under law. The ld Counsel also relied on the decision dated 09/09/2025 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Cou Kalsariya vs ACIT in Civil Application No. 11534 of 2025 According to the learned counsel, as per the ratio laid down by the Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel Even otherwise it is to state that the order passed by assessing officer is invalid as notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is quashed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court and the same has not been contested further Supreme court by revenue. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law R on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,51,65,000/-under section 50C of the | T Act as long term capital gain without considering the facts submitted by assessee. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),NAFC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition u/s 50C without giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of me-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted At the very threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee sought to raise an additional ground very validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was contended that, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Union of India and others Vs Ashish (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal & (2024) 469 ITR 46(SC) the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) stands vitiated being issued beyond the period of limitation permissible under law. The ld Counsel also relied on the decision dated 09/09/2025 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chaturbhai Mohan bhai Kalsariya vs ACIT in Civil Application No. 11534 of 2025 According to the learned counsel, as per the ratio laid down by the Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 2 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 Even otherwise it is to state that the order passed by assessing officer is invalid as notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is quashed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court and the same has not been contested further On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law R on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NAFC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. er section 50C of the | T Act as long term capital gain without considering the facts submitted On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition u/s 50C without giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of At the very threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for additional ground impugning the very validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was contended e judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme of India and others Vs Ashish Agarwal Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal & the impugned notice issued under tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) stands vitiated being issued beyond the period of limitation permissible under law. The ld Counsel also relied on the decision dated 09/09/2025 of Chaturbhai Mohan bhai Kalsariya vs ACIT in Civil Application No. 11534 of 2025 . According to the learned counsel, as per the ratio laid down by the Printed from counselvise.com Hon’ble Apex Court, such notice could only have been issued within the subsisting or surv regime, and any notice issued thereafter would be void 2.1 In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a tabulated computation of the limitation period, prepared on the basis of the illustration adduced in paragraph 112 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity: Calculation of time limit for issue Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal: 01. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notice will also come into effect from (notice issued u/s 148 deemed to be SCN under new regime) 02. After accounting for the exclusions, the Assessing Officer will have surviving time calculated from the date of issue of notice u/s 148 till 30.06.2021 03. Reply filed by assessee on 04. Time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer after receiving the response of the assessee which is on Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel Hon’ble Apex Court, such notice could only have been issued within the subsisting or surviving period available under the erstwhile regime, and any notice issued thereafter would be void In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a tabulated computation of the , prepared on the basis of the illustration adduced in paragraph 112 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity: Jigneshbahi Arvindbhai Patel A. Y. 2013-14 Calculation of time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 of Act 1961 as per example given by Rajeev Bansal:- SC- eg. (para 112) Assessee’s case Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notice will also come into effect from (notice issued u/s 148 under old regime - deemed to be SCN under new regime) 01.05.2021 30.Q6J2Q2L After accounting for the exclusions, the Assessing Officer will have surviving time calculated from the date of issue of notice u/s 148 till 30.06.2021 61 days 1 day Reply filed by assessee on 18.06.2022 03. & 29.06.2022 Time starts ticking for the Assessing Officer after receiving the response of the assessee 18.06.2022 03.06.2022 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 3 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 Hon’ble Apex Court, such notice could only have been issued within iving period available under the erstwhile regime, and any notice issued thereafter would be void ab initio. In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a tabulated computation of the , prepared on the basis of the illustration adduced in paragraph 112 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity: of notice u/s 148 of Act 1961 as per example given by Assessee’s case 30.Q6J2Q2L 1 day .06.2022 29.06.2022 03.06.2022 Printed from counselvise.com 05. The assessing Officer will have to issue notice u/s. 148 of 1T Act time limit available as per Sr. No. 2 above after receipt of reply from assessee 06. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act is issued on 07. Issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is delayed by 08. Status of Notice U/s 148 of the act 09. Status of Order U/s 148A(d) of the act 3. We have given our most careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on either side, and have also perused material available on record. The additional ground raised by the assessee being purely legal in nature, and going to the very root of the matter, requires no investigation into fresh facts. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to admit the same for adju 3.1 The finding of Hon’ble Guja Chaturbhai Mohan Bhai under: 5. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal report ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into statute with effect from 01.04.2021. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice depending upon the surviving time left between the date of Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel The assessing Officer will have to issue notice u/s. 148 of 1T Act 1961 on or before surviving time limit available as per Sr. No. 2 above after receipt of reply from assessee 18.08.2022 04.06.2022 Notice u/s. 148 of the Act is issued on 30.07.2022 Issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is delayed by 56 days Status of Notice U/s 148 of the act Time barred Status of Order U/s 148A(d) of the act Time barred We have given our most careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on either side, and have also perused material available on record. The additional ground raised by the assessee being purely legal in nature, and going to the very root of the matter, requires no investigation into fresh facts. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to admit the same for adjudication. 3.1 The finding of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhai Kalsariya vs. ACIT (supra) is reproduced as In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into statute with effect from 01.04.2021. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) has laid down the law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice depending upon the surviving time left between the date of Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 4 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 04.06.2022 30.07.2022 56 days Time barred Time barred We have given our most careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on either side, and have also perused the material available on record. The additional ground raised by the assessee being purely legal in nature, and going to the very root of the matter, requires no investigation into fresh facts. We, therefore, dication. rat High Court in the case of ACIT (supra) is reproduced as In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union ed in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into statute 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev 469 ITR 46 (SC) has laid down the law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice depending upon the surviving time left between the date of Printed from counselvise.com issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with section 3(1) of TOLA upto 30.06.2021 and th section 148 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). 7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both the sides and has held as under: \"65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice '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 conside 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 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not. 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013 concerned, 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. 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 Years 2016-2017 and 2017 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 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 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 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with section 3(1) of TOLA upto 30.06.2021 and the issuance of notice under section 148 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). 7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both the sides and has 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 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 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not. 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014 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 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 time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment 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 under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant ment year as three years would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 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 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 5 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with section e issuance of notice under section 148 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble 7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both \"65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether 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 ring 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 2014 and 2014-2015 are 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 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 the Assessment 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 ment year as three years would complete within the 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as section 148 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com 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 Rajeev Bansal (supra): SCANO AY 6387/2023 2013-2014 5688/2023 2014-2015 22260/2022 2016-2017 996/2023 2017-2018 SCA NO Due date of filing reply 6387/2023 09.06.2022 5688/2023 06.06.2022 22260/2022 07.06.2022 996/2023 11.06.2022 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. Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 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 Rajeev Bansal (supra): Date of notice under section 148 under TOLA No of days of surviving time available till 30.06.2021 Date of providing information under section 148A(b) 2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022 2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022 2017 30.06.2021 1 23.05.2022 2018 30.06.2021 1 24.05.2022 Due date of filing reply Date of reply:- Date of order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148:- Last date for issuance of notice under section 148 as per time: 09.06.2022 04.06.2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022 06.06.2022 - 27.07.2022 27.06.2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022 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 lid notices. Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 6 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 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 Date of providing information under section 26.05.2022 23.05.2022 23.05.2022 24.05.2022 Last date for issuance of notice under section 148 as per surviving 22.06.2022 27.06.2022 14.06.2022 18.06.2022 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 Printed from counselvise.com 69.The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also no survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.\" 8. In the facts of the case, the respondent Assessing Office provided information pursuant to the directions Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 01.06.2022 and therefore, considering 15 days' time to file reply by the assessee, the petitioner filed reply on 16.06.2022. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act as well as notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering the period of limitation from the date of issu read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be 23. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has verified the above dates and could not controvert the same. 10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as the said notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the impugned notice having been issued beyond the 'surviving time' would be invalid notice as held Apex Court in case paragraph no. 114 (g) and (h) of the judgment: \"114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: XXX (g) The time during which the show to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to the assessees in terms of the directions issued by this court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 69.The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also no survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to ts of the case, the respondent Assessing Office provided information pursuant to the directions issued Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 01.06.2022 and therefore, considering 15 days' time to file reply by the assessee, the due date would be 15.06.2022. The petitioner filed reply on 16.06.2022. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act as well as notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering the period of limitation from the date of issuance of notice under section 148 read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be 23.06.2022. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has verified the above dates and could not controvert the same. 10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as d notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the impugned notice having been issued beyond the 'surviving time' would be invalid notice as held by the Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the following paragraph no. 114 (g) and (h) of the judgment: \"114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: (g) The time during which the show-cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to ees in terms of the directions issued by this court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 7 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 69.The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to ts of the case, the respondent Assessing Office has issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 01.06.2022 and therefore, considering 15 days' time to file reply due date would be 15.06.2022. The petitioner filed reply on 16.06.2022. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act as well as notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering the period of ance of notice under section 148 read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has verified the above dates and could not controvert the same. 10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as d notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the impugned notice having been issued beyond the the Hon'ble of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the following \"114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to ees in terms of the directions issued by this court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) Printed from counselvise.com 1 SCC 617.], and the period of two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show (h) The Assessing Officers we reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. All notices issued b surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside.\" 12. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all consequential proceedings are also quashed 3.1 The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before 04.06.2022, whereas, in fact, it was issued only on 30.07.2022 thereby resulting in a delay of fifty submitted that, reckoning from two weeks after the date of receipt of the assessee’s response (stated to be 03.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 respectively), the time available to the Assessing Officer under the surviving period stood exhausted. It was also urged that the assessee’s submissions on merits were not duly considered by the learned CIT(A). 4. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and considering that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the assessee’s final reply and its acknowledgment in th records requires verification, we are of the considered view that the matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. view the contention of the assessee that his submission were not considered by the ld CIT(A), Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 1 SCC 617.], and the period of two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices; and (h) The Assessing Officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside.\" 12. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all consequential proceedings are also quashed and set unsel for the assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before 04.06.2022, whereas, in fact, it was issued only on 30.07.2022 thereby resulting in a delay of fifty-six days. It was further hat, reckoning from two weeks after the date of receipt of the assessee’s response (stated to be 03.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 respectively), the time available to the Assessing Officer under the surviving period stood exhausted. It was also urged that the essee’s submissions on merits were not duly considered by the Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and considering that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the assessee’s final reply and its acknowledgment in th records requires verification, we are of the considered view that the matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. view the contention of the assessee that his submission were not considered by the ld CIT(A), we accordingly set aside the Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 8 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 1 SCC 617.], and the period of two weeks allowed to the re required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within tax Act read with the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of eyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside.\" 12. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all aside.” unsel for the assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued on or before 04.06.2022, whereas, in fact, it was issued only on 30.07.2022 — six days. It was further hat, reckoning from two weeks after the date of receipt of the assessee’s response (stated to be 03.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 respectively), the time available to the Assessing Officer under the surviving period stood exhausted. It was also urged that the essee’s submissions on merits were not duly considered by the Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and considering that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the assessee’s final reply and its acknowledgment in the assessment records requires verification, we are of the considered view that the matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. Keeping in view the contention of the assessee that his submission on merit gly set aside the Printed from counselvise.com impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to his file, with a direction to examine the issue of limitation in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bansal & Others (supra), after verifying th affording due opportunity to both sides. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall also adjudicate upon the other 5. In view of the matter being restored to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, the other grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and need not be adjudicated at this stage. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced by way display o on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to his file, with a direction to examine the issue of limitation in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in (supra), after verifying the relevant records and affording due opportunity to both sides. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall also after considering submission of the assessee other grounds simultaneously. In view of the matter being restored to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, the other grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and need not be adjudicated at this stage. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for pronounced by way display of result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. - Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 9 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to his file, with a direction to examine the issue of limitation in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajiv e relevant records and affording due opportunity to both sides. The learned Commissioner after considering submission of the assessee In view of the matter being restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, the other grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and need not In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for f result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel 10 ITA No. 272/SRT/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "