Amit Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
AY 2015-16 Reopenings Dead on Arrival: ITAT Surat Quashes All s.148 Notices Post 01.04.2021-TOLA Can’t Revive Time-Barred Years: ITAT Quashes Reopenings for AY 2015-16
The Surat Bench of the ITAT, by a common order dated 31.12.2025, disposed of multiple cross-appeals for AY 2015-16, including Amit Kumar Jain, Hiteshkumar Bhaubhai Ponkia and Vikash Mittal & Sons (HUF), and quashed all reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 as being barred by limitation.
The reassessments had their genesis in notices issued during the transition period following the Supreme Court ruling in UOI v. Ashish Agrawal, where old-regime notices were deemed to be notices u/s 148A(b). However, applying the later and authoritative ruling of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024), the Tribunal noted the categorical concession by the Revenue that for AY 2015-16, any notice issued on or after 01.04.2021 is invalid, as the limitation prescribed u/s 149 had already expired and could not be resurrected by TOLA.
The ITAT also took note of subsequent Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions (including Deepak Steel & Power Ltd.), consistently holding that AY 2015-16 falls outside the permissible reopening window under the new regime. The Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the issue stood covered against the Revenue.
In view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal held that the very assumption of jurisdiction was bad in law, and therefore all reassessment notices and consequential assessment orders for AY 2015-16 were quashed, without going into the merits of additions. Accordingly, the assessees’ appeals were allowed and the Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
The captioned are appeals by the assesses as well as by the Revenue against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] all relating to AY 2015-16. Since common issue has been raised in all the appeals, hence the same were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. ITA No. 844/SRT/2024 is taken as lead case for the purpose of narration of facts and issue involved.
ITA No. 844/SRT/2024:
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal/jurisdictional issue that the impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by way of reopening of the assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act. That pursuant to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India and Ors. vs. had Ashish Agrawal (2022) 444 ITR 01 (SC)” notice issued u/s.148 between 01/04/2021 to 30/06/2021 for AY 2015-16 was deemed to be notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions (new regime) relating to the reopening of assessment, which has come into operation w.e.f. 01/04/2021. That, thereafter, as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashish Agrawal (supra)”, the notice u/s.148 of the Act, in this case, was issued on 29/07/2022. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that this issue was also dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)” and the Revenue therein, had conceded to the effect that so far as AY 2015-16 is concerned, the Revenue could not have issued the notices u/s.3(1) of “Taxation and other laws” (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (in short, “TOLA”) as considering the time period as prescribed u/s.149 of the Act, with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31/03/2019, which is prior to coming into force of “TOLA” and six years would be completed on 31/03/2022 which is after operation of “TOLA”. In such circumstances, notices for AY 2015-16 were held to be invalid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajeev Bansal (supra)”. The Ld. Counsel has, therefore, submitted the reassessment notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as per concession given by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was invalid and, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment for AY 2015-16 after coming into operation of the provisions of section 147 of the Act under new regime, w.e.f. 01/04/2021, was invalid and, therefore, the very reopening of the assessment was bad in law.
2.1. The Ld. DR has also fairly conceded that as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India vs. Rajeev Agrawal (supra)”, the reopening of the assessment for AY 2015-16 was bad in law being barred by limitation.
2.2. The Ld. Counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 14/07/2025 with the lead case in R/Special Civil Application No.17443/2022 along with various other petitions, wherein, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on identical issue has made the following observation:
“11. During the course of hearing before the Hon’ble Apex Court, Revenue conceded to the effect that so far as Assessment Year 2015-2016 is concerned, Revenue could not have issued the notices under section 3(1) of TOLA as considering the time period as prescribed under section 149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are held to be invalid by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court followed the decision of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com144 (SC) 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), has quashed and set aside the notice issued after 31.03.2021 under TOLA for Α.Υ. 2015-16 as under:
“1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms: –
“1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Department for Revenue on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record.
2. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) No.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), the Court declines to entertain the present writ petition, but leaves it open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available to the Petitioner in accordance with law including the in grounds urged the present petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those orders.
3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, the learned counsel appearing appellants(assessee) and Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue.
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 completion during the prescribed under the taxation and other period 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 25.6.2021. is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.
6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed.
7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.”
……….
………
………
”19. In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, these petitions are also allowed. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are held to be invalid as same were issued during the extended period from 01/04/2021 to 30/06/2021 under TOLA.”
3. In view of the above stated legal position, since notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 has been held to be not valid being barred by limitation, therefore, the very reopening of the assessment in the year under consideration is also bad in law and the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is not legally sustainable and hence the same is quashed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal of the revenue (ITA No.844/SRT/2024 for AY 2015-16) is hereby dismissed on this legal ground itself.
ITA Nos. 864 & 1160/SRT/2024 and ITA No.39/SRT/2025
4. All these appeals are also pertaining to AY 2015-16 and are in relation to the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical that has been discussed above in ITA No. 844/SRT/2024, therefore, our findings given above will Mutatis Mutandis apply to these appeals also. Accordingly, the notice issued u/s 148 in all these appeals is barred by limitation and, therefore, the assessment orders passed in all these appeals u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act are, hereby, quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee ITA No.864/SRT/2024 is hereby allowed, and whereas the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA No.1160/SRT/2024 and ITA No.39/SRT/2025 are hereby dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No.846/SRT/2024 is hereby allowed whereas the remaining appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed.
Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31/12/2025.
