Bombay High Court
Ravi Kumar Kailashnath Jaiswal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:22261-DB
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.36517 OF 2025
Ravi Kumar Kailashnath Jaiswal .. Petitioner
Versus
UTKARSH Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
KAKASAHEB Circle-19(3), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
BHALERAO
Digitally signed by Mr.Dharan V. Gandhi a/w Aanchal Vyas, Advocates for the
UTKARSH KAKASAHEB
BHALERAO Petitioner.
Date: 2025.11.26
11:26:31 +0530
Ms.Mamta Omle, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2025
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The present petition has been filed primarily challenging the assessment order dated 17.10.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2014-15, and the consequential notice of demand and the penalty show cause notice. The Petitioner, without prejudice to the above challenge, also challenges, inter alia, the notice under Section 148 Page 1 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc dated 25.07.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 seeking to reopen the Petitioner's assessment for the A.Y.2014-15 and the order disposing of the objections passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the Respondent No.1 dated 25.07.2022.
3. The Petitioner had filed his original Return of Income on 23.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,38,520/-.
4. Subsequently, the assessment of the Petitioner for the year under consideration i.e., A.Y.2014-15 was reopened vide notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was undisputedly issued under the old regime i.e., under the law which was repealed by Finance Act, 2021.
5. In UOI V/S Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that notices of the present nature were deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This was by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision issued certain directions to be followed by the Assessing Officer by modifying the orders of Page 2 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc various High Courts. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder:
"8. ... Therefore, we propose to modify the judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts as under:-
(i) The respective impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The respective assessing officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the assessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter;
(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts;
(iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of Section 148A(d) after following the due procedure as required under Section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees;
(iv) All the defences which may be available to the assessee under Section 149 and/or which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law and whatever rights are available to the Assessing Officer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open and/or shall continue to be available and;
Page 3 of 22
NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc
(v) The present order shall substitute/modify respective judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts quashing the similar notices issued under unamended Section 148 of the IT Act irrespective of whether they have been assailed before this Court or not."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Thereafter, on 25.05.2022, Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court providing material to the Petitioner. Further, vide letter dated 02.06.2022, Respondent No.1 provided additional information.
7. Though the above notices were received by the Petitioner, it is the Petitioner's case that since he was travelling during such time, he could not file any reply.
8. On 25.07.2022, Respondent No.1 passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. In absence of any reply of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 stated that it is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. Simultaneously, a notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued dated 25.07.2022, requiring the Petitioner to file his Return of Income within 30 days from the date of the said notice. Page 4 of 22
NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc
9. Being aggrieved by this action, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition, inter alia, challenging the said notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act which was lodged as WP(L)No.2907 of 2023. This Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2024 and notice under Section 148 of the Act and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act were quashed on the ground of limitation following the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej Industries Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. [Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 decided on 28.02.2024]
10. It appears that the order dated 03.04.2024 in case of the Petitioner was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of limitation in respect of matters arising out of Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020 in the case of UOI V/S Rajeev Bansal reported in [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)]. Detailed findings were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, which are dealt with later on.
Page 5 of 22
NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc
12. On 08.10.2025, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued by Respondent No.1 seeking details from the Petitioner. In the said notice, reference is made to the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
13. In response thereto, the Petitioner filed a reply dated 17.10.2025. In the said reply, after bringing out the fact that the notice under Section 148 was quashed and set aside, it was submitted that the Petitioner is not aware of any Special Leave Petition being filed or any order being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Petitioner. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that even if the said decision of Rajeev Bansal (supra) is applied, then also, the original notice under Section 148 issued on 30.06.2021 was time barred after computing the "surviving period". It was, accordingly, requested that the notice under Section 142(1) ought to be dropped.
14. Despite all this, on the same day i.e., on 17.10.2025, the impugned assessment order was passed. In the said order, it has been stated that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra), the case of the Petitioner is fit to revive. In the impugned assessment order, a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- has been Page 6 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc added to total income. Further, a demand of Rs.47,92,375/- has been determined to be payable by the Petitioner and a notice of demand has also been issued. Over and above this, penalty proceedings are also initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these have been challenged in the present petition.
15. In this factual backdrop, Mr.Gandhi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted as under:-
a) The assessment order dated 17.10.2025 is bad in law as the same is pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 which has been quashed and set aside by this Court in WP(L) No.2907 of 2023 vide order dated 03.04.2023. Further, such order of this Court has not been reversed or set aside. The same therefore, has attained finality. This aspect has not been disputed by Respondent No.1. In such a scenario, no reassessment order could have been passed by Respondent No.1.
b) In any event, the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2025 is issued beyond the "surviving period" as per the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and therefore, the same is barred by limitation. The finding that Page 7 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was to be passed within one month from the end of the month of filing of the reply by the Petitioner is directly in the teeth of the findings in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
c) Moreover, the decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) required Respondent No.1 to first pass an order disposing of the objections and all rights and contentions of the parties, save as otherwise decided in the said decision, were kept open. Respondent No.1 did not pass any such order and directly proceeded with the reassessment proceedings and passed the impugned order. Since, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not followed, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.
16. Per Contra, Ms.Omle, the learned Counsel of the Respondent, submitted that the judgment in case of Rajeev Bansal is applicable to all cases across India. She relied upon the findings in para 115 of the said decision in this regard. Further, she submitted that since, the Petitioner did not file any reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, therefore, the notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be treated as beyond limitation. This is because as per Section 148A(d) of Page 8 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc the Act, the order had to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which reply was to be filed. She, therefore, submitted that the assessment order is valid on all counts and requires no interference.
17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
18. Firstly, we find that the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 25.07.2022 were quashed by this Court in WP(L) No.2907 of 2023 vide order dated 03.04.2024. The same was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the said order of this Court has attained finality. This objection was specifically raised by the Petitioner in its response dated 17.10.2025. This is not disputed by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, in the impugned order, relies on paragraph 115 of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) to justify her action. The said paragraph is reproduced hereunder:-
"The judgments of the High Courts rendered in Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 147 taxmann.com 549/453 ITR 153 (All) Writ Tax No. 1086 of 2022 (Allahabad High Court), Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 147 taxmann.com 585/453 ITR 51 (Guj) R/Special CA No. 17321 of 2022 (High Court of Gujarat), J M Financial and Investment Consultancy Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 451 ITR 205 (Bom) WP No. 1050 of 2022 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay), Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 Page 9 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc ITR 647 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay), Geeta Agarwal Wife of Shri Navratan Agarwal v. ITO [2023] 456 ITR 103 DB Civil Writ Petition No. 14794 of 2022 (High Court Judicature at Rajasthan), Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Orisa), WP (C) No. 20919 of 2021 (High Court of Orissa), Twylight Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 378 WP (C) No. 16524/2022 (High Court of Delhi), Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO [2023] 156 taxmann.com 417/[2024] 460 ITR 546 (High Court of Delhi) and other judgments of the High Courts which relied on these judgments, are set aside to the extent of the observations made in this judgment."
19. We find that nowhere in the entire order has it been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the said order would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the status of the notice. The findings in paragraph 115, in our view, are restricted to about 900 cases which were disposed of vide the common order passed in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Our view is fortified by the fact that even as on date, the Revenue has been challenging various orders of High Courts on the very issues considered in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and consistently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been disposing off such SLPs filed by the Revenue. If the view of Respondent No.1 is correct that the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) covers all cases, then there was no need to file any further SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it appears that even the Revenue is of the same view that the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) applies only to the matters listed and Page 10 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc tagged along with the said case. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the decision in case of Ashish Agrawal (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave findings that the said judgment applies to all cases PAN India, was the subject matter of consideration in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Assessees argued that the decision in case of Ashish Agrawal (supra) does not apply to cases where the notices under Section 148 was not challenged by way of writ petition before any High Court. This contention was dispelled by the Supreme Court in paragraph
92. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
"92. This Court specifically mentioned that its directions would also apply to three categories: (i) the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; (ii) all judgments and orders passed by the different High Court on the issue where notices issued under Section 148 of the old regime after 1 April 2021 were set aside; and (iii) writ petitions pending before various High Courts in which notices under Section 148 of the old regime issued after 1 April 2021 are under challenge Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Court mentioned the above three categories to clarify that the general nature of its directions will also give a quietus to the matters that have already been adjudicated or are pending adjudication before judicial forums. The operation of the directions cannot be limited to the above three categories, especially when this Court has specifically held that "the present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA."
20. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the decision in case of Ashish Agrawal is applicable PAN India and is not restricted to cases where writ petitions were filed challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. Being conscious of such facts, the Hon'ble Page 11 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc Supreme Court did not render similar findings in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Thus, in our view, Respondent No.1 has erred in passing the impugned order without challenging the order of this Court dated 03.04.2024 which had quashed the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 25.07.2022 [for A.Y.2014-15]. As a result, the impugned assessment order, which is in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
21. Even otherwise, we agree with the contention of Mr Gandhi, that in any event, the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 is issued beyond the "surviving period" as laid down in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and therefore, barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has dealt with the limitation issue, the relevant findings of which are reproduced hereunder:-
"108. The Income-tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under Section 148, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of Page 12 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow from the fiction. East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed:
"If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it."] Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income- tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30 June 2021.
109. If this Court had not created the legal fiction and the original reassessment notices were validly issued according to the provisions of the new regime, the notices under Section 148 of the new regime would have to be issued within the time limits extended by TOLA. As a corollary, the reassessment notices to be issued in pursuance of the deemed notices must also be within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. This construction gives full effect to the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and enables both the assesses and the Revenue to obtain the benefit of all consequences flowing from the fiction. See State of A P v. A P Pensioners Association [2005] 13 SCC 161. [This Court observed that the "legal fiction undoubtedly is to be construed in such a manner so as to enable a person, for whose benefit such legal fiction has been created, to obtain all consequences flowing therefrom."]
110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show Page 13 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149.
111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime.
112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.
113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under Section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under Section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under Section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time Page 14 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred.
114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:
a. ....
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;"
22. In the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the 148 Notices were to be issued within the surviving period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the contention that had found favour with this Court in Godrej Industries (supra) that to test the validity of the notice under Section 148 issued after 1st April 2021, the law in force on that date would have to be applied. The Supreme Court also held that applying this principle to test whether a notice under Section 148 is issued within the period of limitation one would have to give effect to the terms of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b). The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) enacts that a notice issued after 1st April 2021 has to be issued within such time as was Page 15 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc permissible under the unamended Section 149(1)(b). Thus, for Assessment Year 2014-15, the notice under Section 148 under the unamended provisions, could have been issued in terms of Section 149(1)(b) by 31st March 2021. The Supreme Court thereafter held that in order to construe whether the notice was issued within the period of limitation, one would have to give effect to the provisions of TOLA as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and the requirements of the provisos to Section 149. The Supreme Court held that during the period from the date of issuance of the deemed notice under Section 148A(b) and the date of the judgment in Ashish Agarwal (supra) [i.e. from 29th June 2021 to 4th May 2022] the Assessing Officers were deemed to have been prohibited from passing a reassessment order, and thus, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed by an order of the Supreme Court from the date of the issuance of the notice till 4th May 2022. The Supreme Court further extended this limitation and stated that the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed not only upto 4 th May 2022 but till the date when the Assessing Officer provided the relevant information and material to the Assessee in terms of the directions issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Supreme Court noted that the provisos to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed to an Assessee to respond to the Page 16 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc show cause notice under Section 148A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore summarized that the total time that is excluded for computation of the period of limitation within which the notice is to be issued as encompassing the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of the original notice issued under Section 148 till the supply of the relevant information or material by the Assessing Officers to the Assessee in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal. A further period of two weeks to allow the Assessee to respond to the show cause notice was also excluded for the purposes of limitation. The effect of this conclusion of the Supreme Court was that the time surviving under the Act read with TOLA that will be available to the revenue to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime will have to be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice, till 30 th June 2021, and accordingly the reassessment notices would have to be issued within the time limit surviving. To understand how the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal would apply to the present case, it would be apposite to set out in the following table the notices etc issued in the present case.
Page 17 of 22
NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc Sr. Date Event No.
1. 30-06-2021 Notice under the erstwhile Section 148 [deemed to be a notice under new Section 148A(b)]
2. 04-05-2022 Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal
3. 25-05-2022 Notice conveying reasons for reopening provided to the Petitioner pursuant to the judgment in Ashish Agarwal and providing a period of two weeks to the Petitioner to respond
4. No reply filed by the Petitioner
5. 08-06-2022 Two weeks' time granted elapsed.
6. 25-07-2022 Order passed under section 148A(d)
7. 25-07-2022 Notice issued under section 148
8. 08-10-2025 Notice under section 142(1)
9. 17-10-2025 Reply filed by the Petitioner
10. 17-10-2025 Impugned assessment order passed
23. From the table set out above and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal the remaining days for conclusion of the procedure for passing of an order in terms of Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act would be one day. In the present case the period of one day would expire on 9th June 2022. However the notice issued under Section 148 is Page 18 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc dated 25th July 2022 and is therefore time barred, in as much as it is issued after the surviving period.
24. The view that we have taken is not only supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Hitesh Ramniklal Shah V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [Writ Petition No.4164 of 2025 decided on 11th November 2025] and Gurpreet Singh V/S DCIT [176 taxmann.com 673 (Bom)], but also that of the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd V/S ITO [477 ITR 133 (Del)], the Gujarat High Court in Dhanraj Govindram Kella V/S ITO [177 taxmann.com 194 (Guj)], and the Madras High Court in Mrs. Thulasidass Prabavathi V/S ITO [174 taxmann.com 508 (Mad)]. In fact, the judgments in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (supra), Dhanraj Govindram Kella (supra) and Mrs.Thulasidass Prabhavathi (supra) have been extensively dealt with by this Court in its judgment passed in Hitesh Ramniklal Shah (supra). It is for this reason that we are not burdening this judgment by once again reproducing the aforesaid decisions. Suffice it to state that we concur with the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hitesh Ramniklal Shah (supra) as well as Gurpreet Singh (supra) and also with the decisions of Page 19 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd (supra), Gujarat High Court in Dhanraj Govindram Kella (supra) and the Madras High Court in Mrs.Thulasidass Prabhavathi (supra).
25. Before closing this matter, it would only be fair to deal with the contention of the Revenue that since no reply is filed to the notice dated 25th May 2022 issued by the Revenue, the concept of the "surviving period" does not apply as set out in Rajeev Bansal (supra). We find that this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is no such finding in the decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). In Rajeev Bansal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the period from the date of the deemed notice under Section 148A(b) to a period of 4 weeks to provide material to the Assessee as directed in Ashish Agarwal, and a further period of 2 weeks to be provided to the Assessee to reply to the said material, were to be excluded. It is therefore difficult to accept that if no reply was filed by the Assessee, then there would be no time limit applicable at all. This is not what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Where no reply is filed to answer the material and/or information supplied by the Assessing Officer, then as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal the surviving period Page 20 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc would start running from the last day to file the said reply, namely, from 8th June 2022. We, therefore, find this argument canvassed on behalf of the Revenue to be without merit.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:-
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act, computation sheet, notice of demand and the consequential notice for penalty all dated 17.10.2025 (Exhibit L);
(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the said notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 ("Exhibit H"), Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 25.07.2022 ("Exhibit G") and show cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 30.06.2021 ("Exhibit D")."
27. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs. Page 21 of 22
NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::
3.wp(l).36517.2025.doc
28. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 22 of 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2025 21:50:24 :::