Geeta Omkar Bapat Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Cash Deposits of ₹80 Lakh, but Reopening Out of Time!
The Controversy
The Mumbai Tribunal quashed a reassessment for AY 2015-16, holding that the notice under section 148 issued on 21 April 2022 was barred by limitation. The proceedings had originated from information concerning cash deposits of ₹80,05,315 in various bank accounts. However, the validity of the reopening proved decisive, and the Tribunal did not examine the source or taxability of those deposits.
An interesting feature was that the CIT(A) had already set aside the assessment for a fresh assessment. The assessee nevertheless challenged the jurisdiction underlying the proceedings. The Tribunal accepted that challenge and quashed the reassessment itself.
Cash Deposits Triggered the Proceedings
The assessee, an individual, had not filed her return of income for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer received information that she had deposited cash aggregating to ₹80,05,315 in various banks.
Based on this information, the case was reopened. During the assessment proceedings, various statutory notices were issued, to which the assessee furnished only a partial response.
The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 10 January 2024 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, determining total income at ₹80,47,990.
On appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC, by an order dated 20 May 2026, set aside the assessment for de novo assessment. Thus, the first appellate order contemplated a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer rather than bringing the reassessment proceedings to an end.
The Assessee Challenged the Very Foundation
Before the Tribunal, the assessee’s sole ground was that the section 148 notice was time-barred.
The assessee pointed out that the notice dated 21 April 2022 concerned AY 2015-16 and contended that it could not survive in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70.
The challenge therefore went to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. If the notice itself was invalid, a fresh assessment pursuant to the CIT(A)’s direction would not resolve that foundational defect.
The Departmental Representatives did not rebut the assessee’s contention, admitting the factual and legal position concerning the issue.
Rajeev Bansal and the Subsequent Decisions
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in the assessee’s favour by Rajeev Bansal, which had been followed by various courts and coordinate Benches.
It specifically referred to paragraph 19(f) of that judgment, recording the Revenue’s concession concerning notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16. Applying that position to the proceedings before it, the Tribunal held that the impugned notice was invalid.
The Tribunal also relied on Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 / 305 Taxman 169. As recorded in the order, the Supreme Court had followed Rajeev Bansal and, in view of the Revenue’s concession, quashed the notices issued after 31 March 2021 under TOLA for AY 2015-16.
Other decisions referred to included ACIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah, ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P.) Ltd., and the Delhi High Court decisions in Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. DCIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 and Lalit Gulati v. ACIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 / 305 Taxman 11.
The Tribunal also referred to a similar Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in CWP No. 7405 of 2025, dated 19 March 2025.
The Tribunal’s Ruling
Following the above decisions, the Tribunal held that the section 148 notice was invalid, and that the consequential assessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
The assessment order was accordingly held bad in law and quashed. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal left the merits undecided. Accordingly, the decision does not establish that the cash deposits were explained, nor does it determine whether any particular amount represented taxable income. The relief rests on the invalidity of the reopening.
Author’s Comments
A direction to undertake a fresh assessment does not answer an objection that the reopening itself was invalid. That is the practical significance of this decision. The assessee pursued the jurisdictional challenge despite the CIT(A) having remitted the matter for a fresh assessment, and secured the quashing of the proceedings.
The absence of a return and the existence of substantial cash deposits were relevant facts for investigation. Yet, the Tribunal’s decision shows that those facts could not sustain the particular reassessment once its statutory foundation failed.
For practitioners, the lesson is to examine jurisdiction before proceeding to the explanation of deposits. The assessment year, notice date and applicable reopening framework may determine whether a detailed factual defence is required at all.
At the same time, the ruling should be cited within its proper scope. It applies Rajeev Bansal and the subsequent decisions to the reopening before the Tribunal; it should not be converted into a blanket proposition covering every notice for AY 2015-16 under every statutory setting.
The cash deposits called for an explanation; the reopening first needed a valid notice.
Cases Discussed
1. Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal & Ors. — Supreme Court, (2024) 469 ITR 46; [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70; 2024 INSC 754. Followed for paragraph 19(f), recording the Revenue’s concession that reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 1 April 2021 were required to be dropped under the relevant TOLA framework.
2. Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes — Supreme Court, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144; (2025) 305 Taxman 169; (2025) 476 ITR 369, decided on 2 April 2025. Followed for setting aside reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued after 31 March 2021 in view of the concession recorded in Rajeev Bansal.
3. ACIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah — Supreme Court, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 57209 of 2024, order dated 4 April 2025. Referred to as another Supreme Court order concerning the limitation position applicable to reassessment notices for AY 2015-16.
4. ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P.) Ltd. — Supreme Court, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59625 of 2024, order dated 17 January 2025. Referred to as a supporting Supreme Court order concerning reassessment proceedings under the relevant limitation framework.
5. Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax — Delhi High Court, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14. Referred to among the High Court decisions following the limitation principles applicable to reassessment notices for AY 2015-16.
6. Lalit Gulati v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Delhi High Court, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273; (2025) 305 Taxman 11. Referred to as a supporting decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16.
7. Jay Agro Industries v. ITO — Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP No. 7405 of 2025, decided on 19 March 2025, as named in the source order. Referred to for similar conclusions concerning reassessment notices for AY 2015-16.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The instant appeal arising from the appellate order dated 20.05.2026 is preferred by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated10.01.2024for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16.
2. In the only ground of appeal, it is stated that the “Ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which is barred by limitation”.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed its return of income for the AY. 2015-16. The case was reopened on the basis of information that she had made cash deposits in various Banks amounting to Rs.80,05,315/-. During the assessment proceedings, various statutory notices were issued to her to which part reply was filed. Further, the AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act on 10.01.2024 at an assessed income of Rs.80,47,990/- which was set aside by the ld.CIT(A) for de novo assessment.
4. The only ground of appeal here pertains to the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order. It is claimed that in this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued for AY 2015-16 on 21.04.2022, which was barred by limitation in view of the judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and hence, it is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
4.1 The ld.DRs did not rebut the claim of the assessee in any manner admitting the factual and legal position relating to the issue in hand.
5. We find that the notice was issued on 21.04.2022 and the relevant assessment year is AY 2015-16.We note that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Apex Court decision(supra) which has been consistently followed by various courts of law including the coordinate benches of ITAT in favour of respective assessees. The Hon’ble Apex Court followed the decision of Rajeev Bansal(supra) in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144/305 Taxman 169 and after recording the concession of the learned advocate for the department and in view of the concession given before the Apex Court by learned advocate appearing for the Revenue as recorded in para 19(f) of the judgment in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), had quashed and set aside the notice issued after 31.03.2021 under TOLA for A.Y. 2015-16. Similar orders have also been passed by the Apex Court in the Asstt. CIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 57209 of 2024, dated 4-4-2025];ITO v. R.K. Build Creations (P.) Limited [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59625 of 2024, dated 17-1-2025]. The hon’ble Delhi High Court has also passed the similar order in Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) Lalit Gulati v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (Delhi).The hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision in case of Jay Agro Industries v. ITO [CWP No. 7405 of 2025, dated 19-3-2025] etc.
5.1 Thus, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has recorded the Revenue’s concession in para 19(f) that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are liable to be dropped. In view of above, the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act for relevant assessment year is held to be invalid. Consequently, the impugned assessment proceeding is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Hence, the assessment order passed by the AO in present case is, hereby, held to be bad in law and quashed. Ground of appeal in this regard is allowed.
6. As we have quashed the order of assessment itself, there is no necessity of adjudicating other grounds of appeal on merits and the same are kept open undecided.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01/10/2026.
