Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs Income Tax Officer International Tax ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6741 Bom

Bombay High Court

Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs Income Tax Officer International Tax ... on 13 October, 2025

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

       2025:BHC-OS:18991-DB


                                                                                       7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                                         WRIT PETITION (L) NO.32774 OF 2025

                       Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma                                  .. Petitioner

                               Versus

                       Income Tax Officer, International Tax,
                       Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.                                       .. Respondents

                            Mr.Dharan V. Gandhi a/w Aanchal Vyas, Advocates for the
                            Petitioner.

          Digitally
                            Mr.Dinesh R. Gulabani (through V.C.), Advocate for the
          signed by

UTKARSH
          UTKARSH
          KAKASAHEB
KAKASAHEB BHALERAO
                            Respondents.
BHALERAO Date:
          2025.10.15
          11:20:10
          +0530

                                                CORAM           : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                                 AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

                                                DATE            : OCTOBER 13, 2025

                       P. C.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive

service. With the consent of parties, heard finally.

2. The present Petition has been filed primarily, with a prayer

to quash and set aside (i) the order passed under Section 148A(d) and

the Notice issued under Section 148, both dated 5 th April 2022 (Exhibit

B and C); (ii) the reassessment order dated 27 th May 2024 passed under

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh

7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc

Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act; (iii) notice of demand of

even date raised for an amount of Rs.4,43,17,910/- for the Assessment

Year ('A.Y.') 2015-16 (Exhibit E1 and E2); as well as (iv) the recovery

notices issued for recovery of demand dated 2 nd July 2025 and 9th

September 2025 (Exhibit G and I) and the consequential penalty notices

and orders.

3. At the outset, it has been fairly stated by Mr.Gandhi, that

the Petitioner herein has filed an Appeal against the reassessment order

passed. However, he submitted that no hearing has taken place despite

the Appeal being filed more than one year back. Further, he stated that

notices for recovery of demand have been issued on two occasions and

the Petitioner has been threatened with coercive steps. He submitted

that if the present Writ Petition is allowed then, he shall withdraw the

Appeal.

4. It is contended by the Petitioner that the Notice issued

under Section 148 for A.Y.2015-16 is dated 5 th April 2022. Since it is

issued after 1st April 2021, it is without jurisdiction and has to be

withdrawn in light of the concession made by the Department before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India V/S Rajeev

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh

7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc

Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further, reliance is

placed on the order dated 2nd April 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited V/S Central

Board of Direct Taxes & Ors in SLP (C) No.5632/2023 and an

order dated 4th April 2025 passed in the case of Assistant

Commissioner of Income-tax V/S Nehal Ashit Shah in SLP (C)

No.57209/2023. Further, our attention is also drawn to the decision

of this Court in Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt Ltd V/S Income-tax

Officer [W.P.1325 of 2023 decided on 6 th October 2025]. Once

the Notice under Section 148 is bad in law, all the consequential

orders/notices would also not survive, is the submission.

5. The learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute

the above position. However, he contends that an Appeal has been filed

by the Petitioner and that this Petition need not be entertained.

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

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh

7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc

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:-

               a.    ....
               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, 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 Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for read with TOLA for (2) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 applicable 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 applicable 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 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;"

(emphasis supplied)

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh

7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc

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 5 th

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)

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh

7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc

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 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 6 th 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 1 st April 2021. Once this is the

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh

7.wp(l).32774.2025.doc

position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5 th

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. In light of this order, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the Appeal

filed by him before the CIT (Appeals) within a period of 2 weeks from

today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason, the present

order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside, then the Appeal

filed by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) will automatically stand

revived and the same shall be prosecuted on its own merits and in

accordance with law.

13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the Writ

Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. No orders as to cost.

14. 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.]

OCTOBER 13, 2025 Utkarsh