NITIN ARJUN PAWAR,PUNE V. ITO WARD 9(1), PUNE

ITA 1925/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Nitin Arjun Pawar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was based on a reassessment order under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer and completed by a Faceless Assessing Officer, which the assessee argued was not permitted under the law. Additionally, the assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148, claiming it was not in accordance with the automated allocation system as per the risk management strategy of the Board. The Tribunal examined the procedural compliance in issuing the notice and the substantive merits of the reassessment, ultimately finding procedural lapses that invalidated the notice and the subsequent reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841927 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde Vs. ITO, Selvakuamr Vethamonickam Nadar Vs. ITO, Deepak Steel and Power Limited Vs. CBDT, Heena Irfan Bepari Vs. ITO, Mayurekumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT, Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO, Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH HALADKAR THROUGH VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE; ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 132; 153A; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nitin Arjun Pawar, At-Dalvat Post Dalvat, Tal Kalwan, Nashik – 423502. V s Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik. PAN: BGIPP6245H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue by Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual) Date of hearing 19/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 23/02/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16 dated 11.07.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the I.T.Act, dated 15.11.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 and consequential order passed u/s 147 rws 144 are bad in law as the notice u/s 148 was issued by Income Tax Officer, (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-JAO) and the assessment order is completed by Faceless Assessing Officer-FAO which is not permitted as per provisions of section 151A and therefore entire proceeding are void-ab-initio and therefore consequential order are bad in law 2. The notice issued u/s 148 in the instant case is bad in law, being not issued through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act and therefore, the order passed u/s 147 rws 1448 may be declared as null and void. 3. The order passed u/s 148A(d) as well as notice issued u/s 148 without conducting requisite enquiries before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act please be quashed and, therefore the order passed u/s. 147 rw s. 1448 may be declared as null and void 4. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the express provisions of Section 149, notice issued u/s 148 on 05/04/2022 for alleged escapement of income of Rs. 25,00,000/- is bad in law as no notice u/s 148 can be issued in this case, since three years have elapsed from the end of A.Y 2015-16 and the amount escaping assessment is less than Rs 50 lakhs. Therefore, order passed u/s 147 may please declared as null and void 5. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the addition of Rs 25,00,000/-made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A be deleted as the same is made without appraising the fact, submissions as well as evidences furnished by the appellant 6 On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case the demand raised pursuant to order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 please be stayed Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of principle of natural justice.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 3 Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, and then passed an order us/.148A(d) on 04.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 alleging escapement of income of Rs.75,00,000/-. Ld.AR invited our attention to the submission made by Assessee in response to notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, wherein, Assessee has clearly explained that the cash deposited of Rs.25,00,000/- was transferred and kept as fixed deposits. This fact has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act. Ld.AR therefore, further submitted that there were total deposits only of Rs.25,00,000/- which has been reported by banks under various heads which made Assessing Officer think it to be Rs.75,00,000/-. Ld.AR submitted that all these facts have been submitted by Assessee to the Assessing Officer during the proceedings initially under Section 133(6) and then under section 148A(b) of the Act. Ld.AR invited our attention to the submission made by Assessee in response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, and 148A(b) of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that since the alleged escapement is only of Rs.25,00,000/-, the notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015-16 which has been Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 4 issued on 05.04.2022, after a lapse of three years is bad in law. Therefore, ld.AR pleaded that assessment order may be quashed. Ld.AR further submitted that for A.Y.2015-16 as per the concession made by Attorney General before Hon‟ble Supreme Court, notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, after 01.04.2022 is bad in law. Ld.AR relied on the case laws. Ld.AR relied on the following decisions :  Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde Vs. ITO 451 ITR 149(Bom) 26.09.2022.  Selvakuamr Vethamonickam Nadar Vs. ITO [2026] 182 taxmann.com 683 (Bom) dated 24.12.2025.  Deepak Steel and Power Limited Vs. CBDT (Supreme Court)  ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Heena Irfan Bepari Vs. ITO in ITA No.1185/PUN/2025; dated 29.07.2025 Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). On 18.02.2026 when this appeal came up hearing, ld.DR requested for adjournment to file a write up on the legal issue. Accordingly, case was adjourned to 19.02.2026 at the specific request of ld.DR. Ld.DR had not filed any write up on 19.02.2026. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 5 Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148A(b) was issued on 21.03.2022. The said notice under section 148A(b) is at page no.20 – 21 of the paper book. The Annexure enclosed with the notice is reproduced here as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 6 5. The Assessee filed a reply dated 23.03.2022 electronically on 24.03.2022. The e-Acknowledgment is at page no.22 of the paper book. Assessee had filed detailed explanation along with copy of bank statement which is at page no.23 to 25 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer has referred to this submission dated 23.03.2022 in the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act. 6. We have studied the reply dated 23.03.2022. Assessee had claimed that he had received cash of Rs.26.75 lakhs from sale of agricultural land at GAT No.136/1, Navi Beg, Taluka Kalwan, District Nashik. Assessee also submitted that Satekath(Agreement to Sale) was duly executed. We have studied the bank statement filed in the paper book of Nashik Merchant‟s Co-operative Bank Limited having account number SB/15773. The relevant part is scanned and reproduced here as under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 7 6.1 Thus, it can be observed that Assessee had deposited cash on 24.11.2014 and 25.11.2014. Then, the said amount was transferred to FDR. Thus, the source of fixed deposits is the cash deposits made by assessee on 25.11.2014. This fact has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in para 3 of the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act. It is again important to mention here that identical enquiry was conducted in the case of assessee by Assistant Director of Income Tax(Investigation-1) by issuing notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. Assessee had filed elaborate reply to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, on 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022. Copies of these replies are in the paper book. We have noted that the Acknowledgment Stamp of the Assistant Director of Income Tax(Investigation) is clearly visible on these letters dated 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022. This explains that Assessee has elaborately explained before the Assistant Director of Income Tax(Investigation) the source of cash deposits of Rs.25,00,000/- with copy of bank statements and copy of Satekath(Agreement to Sale). 7. On perusal of the transactions recorded in the notice us/.148A(b) of the Act, twice cash deposits of Rs.25,00,000/- have been referred. We have perused the bank statement of the assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 8 and it is noted that the transactions referred in the notice u/s.148A(b) of Rs.25,00,000/- under the Head „Cash‟ aggregating Rs.2,00,000/- or more with a Banking Company and cash deposited of Rs.10,00,000/- or more in savings bank account, pertains to the same Rs.25,00,000/- which we have scanned and reproduced above. Thus, on analysis of facts, it is clear that only Rs.25,00,000/- cash was deposited and then same amount was immediately transferred to fixed deposit account. Therefore, there has been an entry of Rs.25,00,000/- three times. 8. All these facts and details were before the Assessing Officer in the form of reply filed by Assessee under section 133(6) of the Act and then, reply in response to notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer has discussed all the facts and ultimately made an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- only for A.Y.2015-16 to the returned income of Rs.1,59,390/-. 9. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, erroneously mentions the alleged escapement of income of Rs.75,00,000/-, which is actually Rs.25,00,000/- only. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 9 10. Admittedly, notice under section 148A(b) has been issued on 21.03.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. Admittedly, notice under section 148 of the Act, has been issued for A.Y.2015-16 on 05.04.2022. Thus, the notice u/s.148 has been issued for A.Y.2015-16 after a lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year. 11. The Section 149 as applicable at that point of time is reproduced here as under : “[Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); 5[(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more:] Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if 6[a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 10 may be], as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) of this subsection, \"asset\" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 7[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), has escaped the assessment and the investment in such asset or expenditure in relation to such event or occasion has been made or incurred, in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), a notice under section 148 shall be issued for every such assessment year for assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.] Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 11 11.1 Thus, as per Section 149 of the Act, after a lapse of three years from the end of assessment year, no notice under section 148 can be issued, if amount escaping assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs. 12. In this case, we have already reproduced the facts which explain alleged escapement of income is less than Rs.50 lakhs for A.Y.2015-16. Therefore, the notice u/s.148 dated 05.04.2022 is issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, for alleged income escaping assessment less than of Rs.50 lakhs, hence, it has been issued beyond the statutory time. Accordingly, the notice us/.148 is bad in law. 13. In this case, as contemplated under section 148A, Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, Assessee filed elaborate reply. Inspite of that, Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, repeating the same transactions. It is also to be noted that in the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, the information mentioned is vague which does not specify any Bank Account Number at all. However, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has approved the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act without understanding the facts narrated in the order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 12 14. Ld.AR has relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde Vs. ITO [2023] 451 ITR 149 order dated 26.09.2022. The relevant paragraph of said order is reproduced here as under : “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the documents on record. To consider whether the writ petition could be entertained, it would be necessary to refer to certain undisputed acts. The notice under section 148 A(b) dated 23-3-2022 grants time to the petitioner to respond to the same by 29-3-2022. The period as granted is less than seven days as prescribed by section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. Nevertheless, the petitioner has responded to the notice by his reply dated 29-3-2022. Alongwith the reply, copy of the registered sale deed dated 3-2-2015 indicating that it was his daughter who had purchased the immovable property therein was supplied. The petitioner's daughter is separately assessed for tax. The name of the petitioner is mentioned as special power of attorney holder for his daughter. The registered sale deed clearly indicates that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the immovable property mentioned therein but it is his daughter, a separate assessee. The amount of consideration mentioned is Rs. 40,00,000/- and it is stated that the purchaser had availed housing loan for the same. On a bare perusal of the registered sale deed, it becomes evident that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the said property as stated in the notice issued under section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961. Despite supplying copy of the registered sale deed to the Assessing Officer, it has not been taken into consideration by him before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961. The same thus clearly indicates lack of application of judicious mind to the material on record. The amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- as mentioned in the notice issued on 23-3-2022 under section 148A(b) thus deserves to be excluded from consideration. As regards deposit of cash of Rs. 16,20,000/- is concerned, the petitioner had sought disclosure of the material or the source of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 13 information on the basis of which such notice was issued The petitioner denied having deposited the aforesaid amount in his bank account. The material/source of information was not supplied to the petitioner. Be that as it may, even if the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- as mentioned in the notice dated 23-3-2022 is excluded from consideration for the reason that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the property in question, the amount remaining for consideration is Rs. 20,71,500/- and Rs. 16,20,000/- thus totaling Rs. 36,91,500/-. In this regard, if the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 are considered, it is seen that only if the amount in question that is likely to have escaped assessment is Rs. 50,00,000/- or more, the time limit for issuing notice to re-open the assessment is three years but less than ten years. Thus if the income that is likely to escape assessment is only Rs. 36,91,500/- after excluding the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-, it is clear that the proceedings are not liable to be re-opened as the amount involved is less than the one contemplated under section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 and the same pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. The notice under section 148(b) is dated 23-3-2022 which is beyond the permissible period of three years. On this count, a case for interference has been made out. 8. In the light of this undisputed position, it would be futile to require the petitioner to face proceedings under section 148 of the Act of 1961. The material on record that was placed before the Assessing Officer warranted consideration especially in the light of the fact that the document relied was a registered sale deed. If the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- mentioned therein is excluded from consideration, the notice as issued on 23-2 2022 falls foul of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961. Hence for this reason, we do not fina that the petitioner should be required to further contest the proceedings under section 148 of the Act of 1961. 9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31-3-2022 passed under section 148 A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as notice dated 31- 3-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act of 1961 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 14 14.1 Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, we hold that notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly, the assessment order is void ab initio. 15. In this case, ld.AR for the Assessee has also raised a legal ground that notice u/s.148 issued on 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 is time barred. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Selvakuamr Vethamonickam Nadar Vs. ITO [2026] 182 taxmann.com 683 (Bom) dated 24.12.2025. 16. It is an admitted fact that notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015-16 was issued on 05.04.2022. 17. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “ 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to at hree judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f)which reads thus:- \"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed underthe Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.\" Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 15 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” Unquote. 18. The above referred decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurekumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). The Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court held as under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd (supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 201516, all the notices issued on or after01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 16 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.”Unqote. 18.1 Similarly, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.” Unquote. 19. ITAT Visakahapatnam in the case of Bhargav Ram Munagapati Vs. ITO in ITA No.510/VIZ/2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 has held as under : Quote, “”13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) and consistently following the view taken in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025, we are of theview that re-assessment proceedings initiated for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the instant case are without jurisdiction and hence assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act consequent to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Since the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee by quashing the re-assessment order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Unquote. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 17 19.1 Similar view has taken by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No.2881/PUN/2024 wherein, notice u/s.148 dated 18.07.2022 was quashed by ITAT. 20. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Selvakuamr Vethamonickam Nadar Vs. ITO [2026] 182 taxmann.com 683 (Bom) dated 24.12.2025 has held as under : Quote“11. In the light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 23rd April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.”Unquote 21. Respectfully following the judicial precedence, we quash the notice u/s.148 dated 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 22. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23 February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 23 Feb, 2025/ SGR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1925/PUN/2025 [A] 18 आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, / / TRUE COPY / / सहधयक रनिस्ट्रधर /Assistant Registrar आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "