SULAKSHANA SHRIKANT JOSHI,PUNE V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1), PUNE

ITA 3117/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 for the assessee, Sulakshana Shrikant Joshi, who was accused of not disclosing certain incomes and making unexplained cash deposits and investments. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued notices under sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to additions to the assessee's income. The assessee contested these additions, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the notices were issued beyond the permissible time limits, rendering them invalid, and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the additions made to the assessee's income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841219 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO, Sandesh Liladhar Chaudhari Vs. ITO, Deepak Steel and Power Limited, Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, Nehal Ashit Shah, Verjinia Foods Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUP SHAHA
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Cost of acquisition; Onus to prove; Gift; Period of limitation; Capital Gains; Competent authority; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 54; 271(1)(c); 54F; 69; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3117/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sulakshana Shrikant Joshi, B 504, Riddhi Siddhi, Sinhagad Road, Near IBP Petrol Pump, Pune-411030 PAN : AIVPJ2087R Vs. ITO,Ward-12(1), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anup Shaha Department by : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of hearing : 23-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24-02-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”/“NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is an individual. For AY 2015-16, the assessee filed her/his return of income on 20.03.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,75,600/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of original notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 29.06.2021 which was thereafter treated as notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC Online SC 543) which was communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2022. The said notice was issued to the assessee based on the information available with the Department that during the relevant AY 2015-16, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.6,58,000/- in The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., sold Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 residential flat for Rs.49,00,000/- and received closure proceeds of fixed deposits amounting to Rs.2,08,318/- which remained unexplained/ unsubstantiated by supporting documentary evidences. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed his reply on 06.06.2022. After considering the reply of the assessee and material available on record, the Ld. AO concluded that the income of Rs.55,80,000/- has escaped assessment for AY 2015-16 and accordingly order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 26.07.2022 with the prior approval of the competent authority stating that the assessee’s case is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 26.07.2022. Statutory notice(s) u/s 142(1) and 143(2) as well as show cause notice were duly complied by the assessee by filing certain explanation to substantiate his case in respect of the above issues raised by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 04.05.2023 thereby making an addition of Rs.49,00,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain, Rs.6,58,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A and Rs.44,10,889/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act by observing as under: “4.6.1. The assessee stated that she had sold property for Rs. 49,00,000/-and re-invested the same in a residential house and the same was exempt u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act. However, this transaction of Capital gains was not shown in her Original Return of Income. Moreover, the assessee did not submit documentary evidences such as purchase deed corresponding to the property sold for knowing the holding period of the Capital Asset (sold property) to ascertain whether the assessee is liable for Short-Term Capital Gains or Long- Term Capital Gains. Moreover, after given many opportunities and many requests for these documents the assessee finally submitted 2 pages of Sale Deed (1st page & another page). The assessee has produced only 2 pages of the Purchase Deed (new property) purchased jointly by the assessee and her husband Mr. Shrirang Hulawale. Here also the assessee did not submit the entire set of Purchase Deed to know the share of the assessee and details of payments made by the assessee and her husband with documentary evidences. The assessee did not even submit the bank accounts maintained by her during the relevant AY 2015-16. Further, the assessee did not submit the basic document of purchase deed which was sold during the year under consideration to ascertain & compute capital gains. The onus of burden of proof is on the assessee to submit all the documentary evidences to claim exemptions. The assessee did not discharge the onus on her. The exemption of Long-term Capital gains comes into consideration only when the assessee proves that the property sold for Rs. 49,00,000/- was held by the assessee for more than 3 years period and for this the assessse should have submitted the purchase document in support of her claim. In the absence of any documentary evidences, the cost of acquisition is not verifiable and the assessee has sold property vide Sale Agreement No. 7400/2014 dated 28.11.2014 for Rs. 49,00,000/-, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 49,00,000/- is treated as Short Term Capital gain of the assessee and added to the returned income under the head \"Capital Gains\". Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 49,00,000/-. Penalty proceedings are initiated U/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 4.6.2. The assessee stated that the source for cash deposits was gift amount received from her husband Mr. Shrirang Hulawale and also submitted that the cash deposits are against the money received by him against the Visar Pavati/ MOU for sale of ancestral land. Rs. 5,00,000 which were received by him on 29.06.2014 in Cash (against the Visar Pavait) and the same was deposited in the assessee's account on 01.07.2014. The amount is Gift from her Husband. The Visar Pavati is already our record (submitted on 07.02.2018). The remaining cash of Rs. 1,80,000 is deposited on various dates out of cash on hand or withdrawals on various dates. However, the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidences in support of her claim, in-spite of being called for vide Notice U/s 142(1) dated 28.03.2023. Hence, the same is added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 6,58,000/-. Penalty proceedings are initiated U/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 4.6.3. The assessee has made Time deposits in The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd for Rs. 44,10,889/-. The assessee has not provided the sources for the time deposits as stated above for Rs. 44,10,889/-. The assessee replied as \"I would also kindly draw the attention that there were no Term Deposits in Saraswat Bank in any of the earlier notices received by me. Hence, I am unable to respond as I don't have any details of the same also same was not discussed any of the hearings done at the IT Department. I would like to know the details for which I can submit my replies.\" The assessee was requested to submit the sources for the said Time Deposits which was sought again by issue of Notice U/s 142(1) dated 28.03.2023 but there was no response from the assessee till date. Notice u/s 133(6) was also issued to The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd to provide the details of the Time Deposits made by the assessee. However, the said bank has not responded till date.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since, there was no response from the side of the assessee to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E)/NFAC, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO by observing as under : “8. Ground of appeal No. 2: In this ground of appeal, the appellant has taken the plea that the addition of Rs.49,00,000/- on account of short term capital gain on sale of property be deleted. 8.1 The ground of appeal is that the Assessing Officer has erred in amounting to Rs.49,00,000/- on account of short term capital gain on sale of property. The relevant extract of the AO’s order is as under:- “4.2.4. Variations proposed on the basis of inference drawn (specify the basis of inference and quantify the variation proposed). The assessee has been given sufficient opportunities to furnish the documentary evidences in support of her claim regarding exemption of capital gains u/s 54F, receipt of gift from her husband, etc. as mentioned above at Para.no.2., but the assessee has not furnished the details called for. Hence, the assessment is to be completed by incorporating the following variations. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 4.2.4.1. Issue No.1: Sale of property for Rs. 49,00,000/-. The assessee stated that she had sold property for Rs. 49,00,000/- and re-invested the same in a residential house and the same was exempt u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act. However, this transaction of Capital gains was not shown in her Original Return of Income. Moreover, the assessee did not submit any documentary evidences such as purchase deed corresponding to the property sold for working out the cost of acquisition and the Sale Deed of the property sold for working out the correct sale consideration. The assessee has not produced any details of the new property purchased to verify the eligibilty of relief under section 54. As, the cost of acquisition is not verifiable and the assessee has sold property vide sale agreement dated 7400/2014 dated 28.11.2014 for Rs.49,00,000/-, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 49,00,000/- is treated as Short Term Capital gain of the assessee and added to the returned income under the head \"Capital Gains\". The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 49,00,000/-.” 8.2 Accordingly, a final show cause notice was issued to the appellant to explain the above discrepancies. In response, the appellant stated that she had sold property for Rs.49,00,000/- and re-invested in a residential house and the same was exempt u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant had not shown transaction of capital gain in her original return of Income. The appellant had also not submitted any purchase deed during the consideration year for proving her eligibility for the said deduction. In the absence of any documentary evidences, the cost of acquisition was not verified for the sold property. Therefore, the AO has rejected the claim of the appellant for deduction u/s 54 as no documentary evidence whatsoever was furnished by the appellant to show the genuineness of the existence of the purchase of new property out of the capital gain accrued and absence of computation of capital gain. The findings of the AO are reproduced below:- “4.6.1. The assessee stated that she had sold property for Rs. 49,00,000/- and re-invested the same in a residential house and the same was exempt u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act. However, this transaction of Capital gains was not shown in her Original Return of Income. Moreover, the assessee did not submit documentary evidences such as purchase deed corresponding to the property sold for knowing the holding period of the Capital Asset (sold property) to ascertain whether the assessee is liable for ShortTerm Capital Gains or Long-Term Capital Gains. Moreover, after given many opportunities and many requests for these documents the assessee finally submitted 2 pages of Sale Deed (1st page & another page). The assessee has produced only 2 pages of the Purchase Deed (new property) purchased jointly by the assessee and her husband Mr. Shrirang Hulawale. Here also the assessee did not submit the entire set of Purchase Deed to know the share of the assessee and details of payments made by the assessee and her husband with documentary evidences. The assessee did not even submit the bank accounts maintained by her during the relevant AY 2015-16. Further, the assessee did not submit the basic document of purchase deed which was sold during the year under consideration to ascertain & compute capital gains. The onus of burden of proof is on the assessee to submit all the documentary evidences to claim exemptions. The assessee did not discharge the onus on her. The exemption of Long- term Capital gains comes into consideration only when the assessee proves that the property sold for Rs. 49,00,000/- was held by the assessee for more than 3 years period and for this the assessse should have submitted the purchase document in support of her claim. In the absence of any documentary evidences, the cost of acquisition is not Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 verifiable and the assessee has sold property vide Sale Agreement No. 7400/2014 dated 28.11.2014 for Rs. 49,00,000/-, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 49,00,000/- is treated as Short Term Capital gain of the assessee and added to the returned income under the head \"Capital Gains\". The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 49,00,000/-. 8.3 From the above discussion, encompassing the facts of the case and the findings in the AO’s order, it clearly emerges that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunities to furnish the documentary evidences in support of her claim regarding exemption of capital gains u/s 54F and receipt of gift from her husband. Further, the appellant has failed to produce purchase deed of the property which was sold during the consideration period. The exemption of Long- term capital gains comes into consideration only when the appellant proved that the property sold was held by the appellant for more than 3 years period. Moreover, in-spite of being given various opportunities by the AO, she had failed to provide any supporting evidence to substantiate her claim regarding the cost of acquisition which was not verifiable and the appellant had sold property amounting to Rs.49,00,000/-. Further, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to file any relevant submissions or documentary evidence, only relying on mere statements and conjectures. None of the evidences mentioned in the SOF were furnished during the appellate proceedings. The onus was on the appellant to provide the supporting documents in order to explain her claims, but she failed to discharge the same. Hence, I find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the AO in making the said additions. The AO has passed a well- reasoned and detailed order, considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 is dismissed. 9. Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4: In these grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken the plea that the addition of Rs.6,58,000/- u/s 69A on account of cash deposited in bank account and Rs.44,10,889/- u/s 69 on account of fixed deposits in Saraswat Bank be deleted. 9.1 Perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has made the addition on this issue on the basis of certain facts and provisions of the I.T. Act therein. The relevant extract of the AO’s order is reproduced below:- “4.2.4.2. Issue No.2: Cash deposit for Rs.6,58,000/-. The assessee stated that the source for cash deposits was gift amount received from her husband Mr. Shrirang Hulawale. However, the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidences about the sources of her husband in support of her claim as gift amount, Income-tax Returns of her husband, bank accounts of her husband, etc to prove her claim about the gift. Hence, the same is added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 6,58,000/-. 4.2.4.4. Issue No.4: The assessee has Time deposits in The Saraswat Co- Operative Bank Ltd for Rs. 44,10,889/-. The assessee has not provided the sources for the time deposits as stated above for Rs. 44,10,889/- Hence, the same is to be treated as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 44,10,889/-. 9.2 Further, finding of the AO are reproduced below :- Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 “4.3.1. A Final show-cause notice dated 13.03.2023 was issued to the assessee communicating the variations to the income wherein the assessee was requested to submit the response by 20.03.2023. The assessee submitted the response on 20.03.2023. The reply of the assessee has been taken on record. Subsequently, the assessee has been issued another 142(1) calling for further details based on the response furnished by the assessee. However, there has been no response from the assessee till date. 4.6.2. The assessee stated that the source for cash deposits was gift amount received from her husband Mr. Shrirang Hulawale and also submitted that the cash deposits are against the money received by him against the Visar Pavati/ MOU for sale of ancestral land. Rs.5,00,000 which were received by him on 29.06.2014 in Cash (against the Visar Pavait) and the same was deposited in the assessee's account on 01.07.2014. The amount is Gift from her Husband. The Visar Pavati is already our record (submitted on 07.02.2018). The remaining cash of Rs.1,80,000 is deposited on various dates out of cash on hand or withdrawals on various dates. However, the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidences in support of her claim, in-spite of being called for vide Notice U/s 142(1) dated 28.03.2023. Hence, the same is added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. The addition/variation on this issue is Rs. 6,58,000/-. 4.6.3. The assessee has made Time deposits in The Saraswat Co- Operative Bank Ltd for Rs. 44,10,889/-. The assessee has not provided the sources for the time deposits as stated above for Rs. 44,10,889/-. The assessee replied as \"I would also kindly draw the attention that there were no Term Deposits in Saraswat Bank in any of the earlier notices received by me. Hence, I am unable to respond as I don't have any details of the same also same was not discussed any of the hearings done at the IT Department. I would like to know the details for which I can submit my replies.\" The assessee was requested to submit the sources for the said Time Deposits which was sought again by issue of Notice U/s 142(1) dated 28.03.2023 but there was no response from the assessee till date. Notice u/s 133(6) was also issued to The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd to provide the details of the Time Deposits made by the assessee. However, the said bank has not responded till date.” 9.3 Perusal of the above shows that the AO has diligently marshalled all the facts and circumstances of the case and has meticulously brought them on record. Further, he has correctly applied the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the above issues and made the said addition on solid legal grounds and has passed a well-reasoned and detailed order. On the contrary, the appellant has not brought any cogent documentary evidences on record to dispute the above addition made by the AO during the present appellate proceedings. On this issue too, none of the evidences mentioned in the SOF were furnished during the appellate proceedings. The onus was on the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits and time deposits in her bank account but she failed to discharge the same. In the absence of any documentary evidences from the appellant to substantiate her claims or to dispute the action taken by the AO, I find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the AO on this issue. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on this issue is upheld and accordingly, the grounds of appeal Nos.3 & 4 are dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred both in law and on fact by confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the original notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after 01.04.2021 was invalid and bad in law as the limitation period to issue notice in the instant case was not covered under the Taxation and Other Laws (Reiaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 thereby making it invalid as the Ld. AO has again issued notice u/s 148 of the Act in July 2022 after Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Ashish Agarwal case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issuing notice u/s 148A(d) by stating that the income escaped assessment is more than 50 lakhs ignoring the submissions made by the appellant. This itself makes the subsequent proceedings under section 148 fructuous and the same may be quashed and the appellant be given just and proper relief. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming and Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs.49,00,000/- on account of short-term capital gain on sale of property. The said addition be deleted and the appellant be granted just and proper relief. 4. On the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming and Ld. AO erred in making an of Rs.6,58,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited in bank account. The said addition be deleted and the appellant be granted just and proper relief. 5. On the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming and Ld. AO erred in making an of Rs.44,10,889/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of fixed deposits in Saraswat Bank. The said addition be deleted and the appellant be granted just and proper relief. 6. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or leave any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that apart from the quantum additions made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has also challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings before the Tribunal on the ground that the original notice issued u/s 148/148A(b) on 29.06.2021 is barred by limitation. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), the Ld. AR submitted that as per the said decision the due date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as applicable to the instant case is 31.03.2021 and hence the notice u/s 148A(d) on 29.06.2021 and subsequent notice u/s 148 on 26.07.2022 is barred by limitation. He further relied on the following decisions in support of his above claim. i. Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2881/PUN/2024 for AY 2015-16, order dated 25.04.2025 and Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 ii. Sandesh Liladhar Chaudhari Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1228/PUN/2025 for AY 2015-16, order dated 28.08.2025. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the above submissions of the Ld. AR and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the material available on record and paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. We have also perused the various judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. AR. We find that the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 04.05.2023 thereby making an addition of- (i) Rs.49,00,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain; (ii) Rs.6,58,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A and (iii) Rs.44,10,889/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Admittedly, there was non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. From perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we find that he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO due to assessee’s failure to furnish the requisite submissions/evidences/explanation in support of various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before him inspite of several opportunities granted to the assessee. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) in support thereof on the ground that the notice issued to the assessee under section148A(b)/148 of the Act is barred by limitation. On perusal of this legal ground raised by the assessee, we find that it goes to the root of the matter and does not require verification of any additional/ new facts. Further, we find that the impugned issue raised in the said legal ground stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court as well as Co- ordinate Bench(es) of the Tribunal including the Pune Tribunal. In the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play, to proceed and adjudicate the legal ground at this stage. 8. It is a matter of fact that the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act for AY 2015-16 on 29.06.2021. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act on Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 26.07.2022. Under the old provisions of section 149, which is applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, the notice u/s 148 would not have been issued beyond the period of 6 years from end of the relevant assessment year. The period of 6 years from the AY 2015-16 laps on 31.03.2022. As stated earlier, in the instant case, notice u/s 148A(b) issued to the assessee on 29.06.2021 and subsequent notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.07.2022 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under the said provisions of the Act. We find that the Revenue has also conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) that the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is not applicable to the notices issued for AY 2015-16. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below : “19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re- assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re- assessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.” Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime; e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, PART C including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read with Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 TOLA (or (2) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; g. Section 2 of TOLA defines “specified Act” to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 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 2022. 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 (supra). 9. Similarly, at para 46 of the order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.” 10. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 114 of the order has observed as under: “G. Conclusions 114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 a. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148; d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021; 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 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 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), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses 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 TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;” 11. Recently in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, order dated 13.10.2025 (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022 which is at page 52 of the paperbook. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:- 19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- ....... e. The Finance Act 2021 substitute the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 21-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 21-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;\" (emphasis supplied) 7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped. 8. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- \"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.\" 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- \"5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned.\" 10. Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 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.” 12. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Verjinia Foods Ltd., order dated 06.10.2025 holding as under : “17. Accordingly, we hold that the Notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 issued on 5th April 2022 was barred by limitation and ought to have been dropped pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). We also agree with the submission of both the parties, that the Notice issued on 5th April 2022 under Section 148 is also bad in law in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware (supra). 18. Since the Notice issued on 5th April 2022[wrongly mentioned as 6th April 2024] under Section 148 was already quashed by order dated 9th May 2024 passed in the above Writ Petition, the consequent order of reassessment dated 3rd March 2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, the Notice of Demand dated 3rd March 2025 issued under Section 156 and all the notices proposing to impose penalty under Section 271F, Section 271(1)(b) and Section 271(1)(c) and any order/notice, if any, emanating therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside.” 13. The case of the assessee also finds support from the decisions (supra) of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal (Supra) and Sandesh Liladhar Chaudhari (supra) wherein the Tribunal in turn relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and several other decisions quoted therein has decided the impugned issue in favour of the assessee. 14. In view of the factual matrix of the case and legal position set out above and in the absence of any contrary material/judicial precedent brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the impugned notice issued to the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.3117/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 assessee u/s 148A(b)/148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic in nature and therefore not adjudicated. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 24th February, 2026. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "