Panaji ITAT Quashes Reassessments for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18: Section 148 Notices Beyond Limitation Invalid

Karimulla Habibulla Sayed Vs ITO (ITAT Panaji)

Panaji ITAT Quashes Reassessments for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18: Section 148 Notices Issued Beyond “Surviving Limitation” Under Rajeev Bansal Are Void Ab Initio

The Panaji ITAT in Karimulla Habibulla Sayed v. ITO quashed reassessment proceedings for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 on the ground that the notices issued under section 148 on 27 July 2022 were barred by limitation under section 149, applying the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

For AY 2016-17, the reassessment arose from Investigation Wing information that M/s N.I. Associates had allegedly sold raw materials worth ₹32.32 lakh to the assessee which were not reflected as purchases. The original section 148 notice was issued on 30 June 2021. Pursuant to Ashish Agarwal, a fresh section 148A(b) notice was issued on 24 May 2022, followed by the section 148A(d) order and fresh section 148 notice on 27 July 2022. The AO ultimately made an addition of ₹32.32 lakh under section 69C.

ITAT: Entire Section 148A Process Must Fit Within Section 149 Limitation

The Tribunal applied the principle laid down in Rajeev Bansal that the Revenue gets only the “surviving” or balance limitation period available between issuance of the deemed notice and 30 June 2021. Once the exclusions permitted by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal are accounted for, the Revenue must complete the section 148A process and issue the fresh section 148 notice within that surviving period.

Importantly, the ITAT rejected the proposition that the independent time available for passing an order under section 148A(d) can extend the outer limitation prescribed by section 149. The entire procedure under section 148A(a) to (d), culminating in the section 148 notice, has to be completed within the overall limitation available under section 149.

Following the Bombay High Court judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. DCIT, the Tribunal held that the notice dated 27 July 2022 was beyond the permissible surviving limitation and consequently declared it “void ab initio and bad in law.” The notice, entire reassessment proceedings and assessment order were therefore quashed. The substantive challenge to the ₹32.32 lakh section 69C addition became academic and was not adjudicated.

For AY 2017-18, the ITAT admitted an additional limitation ground even at the appellate stage. Since the facts were identical and the section 148 notice dated 27 July 2022 had been issued after the applicable cut-off date of 16 June 2022, the Tribunal applied its decision for AY 2016-17 mutatis mutandis and quashed that reassessment as well.

Cases Discussed:

• Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT & Others (Bombay High Court), [2025] 176 taxmann.com673 (GOA) [08-05-2025]
• Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi High Court), [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi)/2025 SCC OnLine Del 481
• Virendra Ship Recyclers LLP v. Asstt. CIT (Bombay High Court), [2025] 170 com 588 (Bombay)
• Income-tax Officer v. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya (SC), [2024] 168 com 588/[2025] 302 Taxman 183 (SC)
• Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. (SC), [2025] 170 com589/303 Taxman 333 (SC)
• New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Bombay High Court), [2024] 158 com 367 (Bombay)
• Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Bombay High Court), [2024] 160 com 13 (Bombay)
• Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (SC), [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)
• Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India (Allahabad High Court), [2023] 147 com 549/453 ITR 153 (Allahabad)
• Ashish Agarwal (SC), (2023) 1 SCC 617
• Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya v. ITO (Gujarat High Court), [2023] 152 com 656 (Gujarat)
• Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (Gujarat High Court), [2023] 147 com 585/453 ITR 51 (Gujarat)
• Raminder Singh v. Asstt. CIT (Delhi High Court), [2023] 156 taxmann.com 148/[2024] 461 ITR 368 (Delhi)/2023 DHC 6672-DB
• Hexaware Technologies Limited (Court not specified in supplied citation), SLP (C) No. 21188 of 2024

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PANAJI

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 29.10.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively.

2. Since identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.410/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 for adjudication as the lead case.

ITA No.410/PAN/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 :

4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Ld Assessing Officer order of addition of Rs 32,32,410/- to total income u/s 69C of Income Tax Act 1961, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case and law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding Ld Assessing Officer order, who has relied only on the information of the third party without any independent verification or evidence to support addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the hands of the appellant.

3. The Ld CIT(A) erred is taking contrary view of invoking reassessment u/s 148 which is time barred by limitation u/s 149(1)(a) being 3 years as the monetary limit is less than 50 lakhs as held in Ganesh Dass Khanna & Ors Vs Income Tax Officer & Others (2023) 335 CTR 881 (Delhi) HC.

4. The Ld CIT(A) erred is taking contrary view when SLP of the Department was dismissed by Supreme Court and High Courts of Bombay, Telangana and Jurisdictional Karnataka, have held that notice issued u/s 143 by JAO instead of FAO to be not in accordance with the law.

5. We take leave to add/alter any grounds of appeal on or before the date of the hearing.”

5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and on the basis of information received from the ADIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Belagavi, that M/s. N. I. Associates has sold raw materials of Rs.32,32,408/- to the assessee, however, the assessee has not shown that much purchases from M/s. N. I. Associates and therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and original notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 30.06.2021. Subsequently, as per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction fresh notice u/s 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 24.05.2022 and since the assessee did not furnish any reply, order u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act was passed on 27.07.2022 and fresh notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was also issued to the assessee on 27.07.2022. The assessee furnished return in response to above notice on 27.08.2022 by declaring income of Rs.3,39,520/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.05.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.35,71,930/- as against the income of Rs.3,39,520/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.32,32,408/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act.

6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee has raised various grounds including that the reopening notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149 of the IT Act and hence the consequential assessment proceedings and the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is null and void since the notice dated 27-07-2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act is time barred being issued beyond the surviving period of limitation prescribed/approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). In this regard, we find that for assessment year 2016-17 which is the year under consideration, the limitation period available with the Assessing Officer u/s 149 (of old regime) for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was till 31.03.2021 (since within four years from the relevant assessment year), and even if in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), the surviving period is considered, the Assessing Officer had time only till 20.06.2022 to issue notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Since Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rejeev Bansal (supra) has categorically held that 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 30.06.2021. In this regard, we find that the details w.r.t. surviving period calculation, post SC decision in case of Rajiv Bansal is as follows :-

9. From the above details, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer could have issued fresh notice u/s 148 of the IT Act only upto 16.06.2022, however the impugned notice was issued on 27-07-2022 which is apparently beyond the surviving time limit calculation as provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). In this regard, we also find support from judgement passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT & Others order dated 08.05.2025 wherein under identical facts the Writ Petition filed by the assessee was allowed since the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act was held to be time barred being issued beyond surviving time limit by observing as under :-

“6. Although multiple grounds as mentioned above have been raised in the writ petition, the learned Advocate for Petitioner has limited his challenge to the point that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 was time barred in view of the first proviso to substituted Section 149 as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra). Reliance is also placed on the Delhi High Court judgement in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi)/2025 SCC OnLine Del 481 to contend that on identical facts and consistent with the interpretation of the Petitioner in the instant case, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were quashed. It is urged that the remainder period as per the ratio of the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) was only 2 days and that the period of 2 days expired on 23/07/2022. This conclusion could be drawn after considering all the exclusions contemplated under 3rd proviso to substituted Section 149 and the exclusions directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as interpreted in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The notice dated 29/07/2022 was thus liable to be quashed.

7. The respondents have canvassed oral arguments and have filed a synopsis of arguments based on the petitioner’s submissions. According to the Respondents and as indicated in the written synopsis :

(i) The assessment re-opened is valid within the meaning of the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act. Hence, the further proceedings are valid as the same are initiated within the time limitation as notified under the TOLA extending the time limit till 30/06/2021 for re-opening the assessment vide Notification No.38/2021/ F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL.

(ii) That the Government of India notified the TOLA on 29/09/2020. That in view of the TOLA, any notices and orders or compliances for which the due date falls until 31/12/2020 were extended to 31/03/2021, and further thereafter again the same was extended till 30.6.2021.

(iii) That the Central Board of Direct Taxes – CBDT Notification under the TOLA dated 31/12/2020 extended the time limit from 31/12/2020 to 31/03/2021. The CBDT’s Notification dated 31/03/2021 extended the date from 31/03/2021 to 30/04/2021. Subsequently, again, CBDT’s Notification dated 27/4/2021 extended the time barred period from 30/04/2021 to 30/06/2021.

(iv) That the time limit to re-open the proceedings in the present case within the meaning of Section 147 had been extended to 30/06/2021 and that the first notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated 29/06/2021 was issued within the extended statutory time limit. The notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the petitioner on 20/05/2022, the objections raised by the petitioner were also disposed of by passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act on 29/07/2022 which was within the permissible time limit.

(v) That accordingly, the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued after getting prior approval from the Competent Authority. There was no violation of any legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner. Reassessment proceedings were well within the statutory time limit and were not time-barred in view of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the IT Act, which was made applicable from 01/04/2021.

(vi) That the time limit to re-open the proceedings in the present case within the meaning of Section 147 had been extended to 30/06/2021. The first notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was dated 29/06/2021and that the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with 144B of the IT Act was passed under the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 where the assessment was done on automated allocation. Hence, the aspect of absence of jurisdiction was without substance.

(vii) The order dated 29/07/2022 was passed within the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) in as much as the first reply was uploaded on 03/06/2022 and the additional reply was uploaded on 28/06/2022. Going by the mandate of Section 148A(d) which contemplates that an order under Section 148A(d) was to be passed within one month from date of compliance from notice under Section 148A(b), the limitation would be till 31/07/2022. It is contended that the end of the month for compliance in respect of notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act would be 30/06/2022 as the replies were dated 03/06/2022 and 28/06/2022. The period of one month had to be counted from 30/06/2022, which would fall on 30/07/2022.

(viii) The Learned counsel for the Respondents has referred to judgments in :-

(a) Ashish Agarwal
(supra);

(b) Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India[2023] 147 com 549/453 ITR 153 (Allahabad);

(c) Virendra Ship Recyclers LLP v. Asstt. CIT[2025] 170 com 588 (Bombay);

(d) Income-tax Officer v. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya[2024] 168 com 588/[2025] 302 Taxman 183 (SC);

(e) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. [2025] 170 com589/303 Taxman 333 (SC);

(f) Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya v. ITO[2023] 152 com 656 (Gujarat);

(g) Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer[2023] 147 com 585/453 ITR 51 (Gujarat);

(h) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT[2024] 158 com 367 (Bombay);

(i) Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT[2024] 160 com 13  (Bombay).

8. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that although reference is made to the above judgments at para 17 of the written synopsis, the following is stated:

i. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed the re-opening notices for the AYs 2013-14 and other years as time barred under the Amended provisions of the IT Act (as amended from 1-42021).

ii. The decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd (supra) for AY 2013-14 which was followed in Virendra Ship Recyclers and Sanman Impex Ltd. (supra) were set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on Rajeev Bansal (supra).

iii. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya (supra) for AY 2013-14 was also set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on Rajeev Bansal’s (supra).

iv. The decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) which was followed in Hexaware Technologies (supra) for the same AYs 2013-14 by this Court quashing the re-opening notices on this and other grounds were now subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Hexaware Technologies Ltd. [SLP (C) No. 21188 of 2024].

9. In view of the controversy involved, it is necessary to refer to the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra). Since the decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has been considered in Rajeev Bansal (supra), it would be advantageous to refer to its observations in this regard in paragraphs 106 and 107. It held as under :-

“106…………..To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, (2023) 1 SCC 617 is that the showcause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices.

107. The third proviso to Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assessees to respond to the show-cause notice under Section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes “the time or extended time allowed to the assessee”. Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show-cause notice has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, this Court provided two weeks to the assessees to reply to the show-cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation of limitation given the third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is : (i) the time during which the show-cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the Assessing Offices to the assessees in terms of the directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal ; and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices. “

10. It further held in paragraphs 108, 111 and 113 as under :-

“108……….. Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal is that the time surviving under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 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 June 30, 2021.

111 .The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assessees 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 limt, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendmnet of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was available to the Assessing Officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime.

113…….. 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 limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred. ‘”

11. Thus, the effect of the judgment in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that whilst upholding the contention of the assesses that from 01/04/2021, the new regime applied and the issuance of notices under the old regime were contrary to law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed that notices issued under Section 148 of the old regime be construed as notices under Section 148A(b) of the new regime and the enquiry contemplated under Section 148A(a) was done away with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were directed to provide the information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within a period of thirty days to enable the assesses to respond to the notice within a period of two weeks after which Assessing Officer had to pass an order under Section 148A (d) of the IT Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly observed that all defences available under Section 149(a) of the IT Act would continue to be available to all the assessees. However, in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not delve into the aspect whether reassessment notices were within the time stipulated under the IT Act read with TOLA and the Notifications issued thereunder.

12. The decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was extensively considered by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The ratio laid down in the said judgment is pivotal to the issues involved in the present case and both parties have been extensively heard on the implications of the said judgment on the case in hand. In fact, the Petitioner has conceded his case stands or falls on the basis of the interpretation on the issue whether the reassessment notices issued are time barred under the applicable provisions of the IT Act.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) concluded as under :

a. After 01/04/2021, the IT Act has to be read along with substituted provisions,

b. TOLA would continue to apply to the IT Act after 01/04/2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the IT Act falls for completion between 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021;

c. Section 3(1) of the TOLA overrides Section 149 of the IT Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148;

d. The TOLA would extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether the TOLA would apply to Section 151 of the new regime is that: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20/3/2020 and 31/03/2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(1) has extended time till 30/06/2021 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 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31/03/2021 to grant approval;

f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) would extend to all the reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1/4/2021 and 30/06/2021;

g. The time during which the show-cause notices were deemed to be stayed would be from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 01/04/2021 and 30/06/2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to the assessees in terms of the directions issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the show-cause notices, and

h. The Assessing Officer was required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the IT Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period would be time barred and liable to be set aside.

14. As stated earlier, the instant case is premised on ratio laid down in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and the applicability of the principles laid down to the facts of the present case. The sequence of events in the case in hand is as under :

15. In terms of the decisions in Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), the following position emerges in the context of the present case :-

(i) The period for subject reassessment in terms of Section 149 of the old regime is deemed to be extended till 30/06/2021 under the TOLA.

(ii) The notice dated 29/06/2021 would be deemed to be notice under Section 148A(b).

(iii) The surviving period by excluding the date of re-issuance of notice on 29/06/2021 would be the remainder days  in the month of June 2021 (30/06/2021 – 28/06/2021), namely, two days.

(iv) On 30/06/2021, the extension in terms of the TOLA would come to an end.

(v) The period that stands excluded is
:

(a) The period up to 30/06/2021, which is covered by the provisions of the IT Act read with the TOLA.

(b) The period from 01/07/2021 to 03/05/2022 being the period before the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra).

(c) The Period from 04/05/2022 till 20/05/2022, which is the date when the material was furnished and the reasons for reopening were given to the Petitioner.

(d) The period of two weeks time for reply to be filed by the Petitioner, which ended on 04/06/2022 and the extended time to file reply (additional reply was filed by the Petitioner on 28/06/2022). Further extension was given to the Petitioner in pursuance to notice dated 14/07/2021 giving additional time of one week in view of change in the incumbent to the Office, which period ended on 21/07/2022.

16. By considering all the exclusions, the remainder days for conclusion of the procedure for passing of an order in terms of Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148 would be two days from 21/07/2022 and the same would expire of 23/07/2022. Applying the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the context of the 1^stproviso to Section 149 we are therefore of the opinion that the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 is time barred. The order under Section 148A(d) as well as the notice issued under Section 148 are dated 29/07/2022 which is much after the surviving period which expired on 21/07/2022.

17. In light of the above, the contentions raised by the Revenue lack foundation in terms of law. Although the Revenue has contended that the order dated 29/07/2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 were within the timelines contemplated by the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), the same lacks substance. In the written synopsis, an attempt was made to justify the timelines by contending that in terms of Section 148A(d), the period mandated for passing of the order was within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to is received or where no such reply is furnished within one month from the end of the time by which the extended time allowed to furnish reply as per clause (b) expired. Relying on the said provision it was contended that the replies are dated 03/06/2022 and 28/06/2022 and going by the same, the end of the month would be 30/06/2022. Hence the expiry of time would be on 31/07/2022. It is therefore contended that the order is passed within the one month time contemplated under Section 148A(d).

18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A(d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the IT Act. The entire process under Section 148A(a) to (d) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 has to be completed within the total time available in terms of Section 149(1) of the IT Act for issuance of notice under Section 148. A notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act which is beyond the time line stipulated under Section 149(1) is non-complaint and invalid. The timeline under Section 148A(d) is for the Assessing Officer to comply with the stipulations and the streamlining contemplated under Section 148A. This is primarily to bring in transparency and accountability into the system and is intended for the benefit of the assessees. However to suggest that Section 148A(d) extends the time limit under Section 149(1) and/or has a bearing on the time under Section 149(1) is a submission which is misconceived and lacks legal sanctity.

19. It was urged by the Revenue that the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) was under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence the Court could consider awaiting its outcome. The decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited has not been stayed. Since we have proceeded on the basis of the law laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rejeev Bansal (supra), this contention cannot be accepted. Reference to various decisions has been made. In fact, the decisions referred to are inconsistent with the case set up by the Respondents. Except for the decision in Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya (supra), other judgments are rendered prior to the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and /or do not consider the said decision. Hence the said judgments do not in any manner assist us in deciding the controversy in issue especially in the context to the limited issue that is raised by the Petitioner herein.

20. At this point we deem it appropriate to note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO[2025]  171 com 99 (Delhi)/2025 SCC OnLine Del 481 dealt with an identical issue. It considered the principles laid down in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) and concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 under the IT Act was time barred. In the facts of that case as well, the AY was 2013-2014 and the notice under Section 148 issued to the assessee was dated 01/06/2021. The date of furnishing material to the Petitioner in that case was 30/05/2022. The said Petitioner furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act on 13/06/2022. In this factual backdrop, the Delhi High Court applying the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra) came to the conclusion that the remainder period with the Assessment Officer was twenty-nine days from 01/06/2021 when the reassessment proceedings commenced for issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The limitation for passing of the order under Section 148A(d) expired on 12/07/2022. Accordingly, the notice under Section 148A of the IT Act issued on 30/07/2022 was held to be beyond limitation and the same was quashed. The Delhi High Court also relied on the observations made in the case of Raminder Singh v. Asstt. CIT  [2023] 156 taxmann.com 148/[2024] 461 ITR 368 (Delhi)/2023 DHC 6672-DB wherein it was held that one month from the end of the month in which the time available to the assessee to respond to the notice under clause (b) of Section 148A expires is available to the Assessment Officer to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act. It was further held that notice under Section 148 of the IT Act that is not accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act would be non-compliant with the IT Act and no such notice could be issued beyond the period as specified under Section 149(1) of the IT Act. This decision of the Delhi High Court is consistent with our view based on the interpretation of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra).

21. For all these reasons, we hold that the notice dated 29/07/2022, issued by Respondent no.1 under Section 148 of the IT Act is beyond the time period specified under Section 149(1) of the IT Act. It is therefore quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 29/05/2023 passed on the basis of the impugned notice also stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.”

10. Respectfully following the above judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 176 taxmann.com673 (GOA) [08-05-2025], we are of the considered opinion that the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act is barred by limitation period specified u/s 149 of the IT Act and accordingly, we declare the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act as void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act are also quashed. Thus, the ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the reassessment order by allowing the ground no.3 raised by the assessee, the remaining grounds become academic, hence not adjudicated by us.

11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.410/PAN/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed.

ITA No.411/PAN/2025, A.Y. 2017-18 :

12. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the counsel of the assessee requested to raise additional ground, regarding challenge to the reopening notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act being barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149 of the IT Act, since the same was issued beyond 16.06.2022, which is the cut-off date in the instant case, hence the consequential assessment proceedings and the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 on the basis of above ground, and the facts in the assessment year 2017-18 are identical, therefore, we accept the oral request of the assessee for admission of above additional ground and allow the same, since the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 u/s 148 of the IT Act for this assessment year was also issued beyond 16.06.2022 which is the cut-off date in the instant case, by following the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT & Others order dated 08.05.2025 wherein, Hon’ble High Court by following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), held that a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act which was issued beyond the surviving time period is bad in law. Accordingly, our decision in ITA No.410/PAN/2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.411/PAN/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.411/PAN/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 is also allowed.

13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.411/PAN/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 is allowed.

14. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as indicated above.

Order pronounced on this 30^th day of July, 2026.