[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mitra Biswas vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(2)(1) Mumbai on 3 February, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2026:BHC-OS:3300-DB
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3068 OF 2026
Mitra Biswas .. Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-26(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Sham V. Walve a/w Bhavik Chheda i/b Sameer Dalal,
Digitally
signed by
Advocates for the Petitioner.
UTKARSH
UTKARSH KAKASAHEB
KAKASAHEB BHALERAO
BHALERAO Date:
2026.02.04
15:04:07
+0530 Mr.Ravi Rattesar, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2026
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of
parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the
Notice dated 14th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act"), consequential Assessment Order
dated 19th February 2024, and the Recovery Notices dated 25 th July
2025 and 21st November 2025 for the A.Y.2015-16.
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
3. Brief facts of the case are that a Show Cause Notice under
Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued on 28 th March 2022 alleging
that an immovable property acquired by the Petitioner revealed that
income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset had
escaped assessment. The Petitioner was asked to show cause why a
notice under Section 148 should not be issued to her. The Petitioner
claims that she was unable to respond to the Show Cause Notice as she
was completely unaware about initiation of such proceedings.
Thereafter, an order dated 14th April 2022 was passed under Section
148A(d) holding that Petitioner's case is fit for issuance of notice under
Section 148 of the Act for A.Y.2015-16. Accordingly, the impugned
Notice dated 14th April 2022 came to be issued to the Petitioner under
Section 148 of the IT Act by Respondent No.1.
4. The impugned Notice finally culminated into an
Assessment Order dated 19th February 2024 passed under Section 147
read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act thereby making additions
under Section 69 of the Act on account of Short-Term Capital Gains in
the hands of Petitioner. A Demand Notice dated 19 th February 2024
under Section 156 of the Act along with a Computation Sheet were also
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
issued. Subsequent thereto, the Income Tax Department has issued
several notices to the Petitioner for recovery of the demand so raised.
5. At the outset, Mr.Walve, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner fairly stated that the Petitioner has already filed an Appeal
against the Assessment Order in January 2026. However, he submits
that the jurisdictional issue raised in this Writ Petition is concluded in
favour of the Petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in
Union of India V/S Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com
70 (SC)] as far as A.Y.2015-16 is concerned. He points out that the
Department has categorically made a concession before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on the validity of notices under Section 148 of the IT Act
issued after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 at Paragraph 19(f) of the
judgment in Rajeev Bansal (Supra). In view of the same, he submits
that the impugned Notice dated 14 th April 2022 issued to the Petitioner
is time-barred and should be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr. Walve also relied upon another judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. V/S
Central Board of Direct Taxes [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144
(SC)] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that for A.Y.2015-16, all
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
notices under Section 148 of the IT Act issued after 1 st April 2021 would
be liable 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.
7. Per contra, Mr. Rattesar, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents, urged that the Petitioner has already availed of the
alternate remedy of filing an Appeal before the learned Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, this Writ Petition should not be
entertained. He also argued that in any case, the Petitioner has belatedly
approached this Court, and thus, on the ground of delay and laches also,
this Writ Petition should not be entertained. However, he does not
dispute the fact that the impugned Notice relates to A.Y.2015-16 and
that the same has been issued on 14th April 2022. He also fairly stated
that in view of Department's concession before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the issue of validity of such notices
under Section 148 of the IT Act [for A.Y.2015-16] now stands concluded
in favour of the Petitioner.
8. In response to the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Walve drew
our attention to a judgment passed by this Court in Cherian Nallathu
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
Abraham Annamma V/S Income-tax Officer, International
Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 433
(Bombay)] to say that this Court under similar circumstances has
quashed and set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of
the IT Act and consequential Orders. He pointed out that this was a case
relating to A.Y.2015-16 and where an Appeal was also filed before the
learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He also relied on a
judgment of this Court in Bhoomi Viral Shah V/S Income-tax
Officer [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 682 (Bombay)] to say that an
Assessment Order which is void ab initio cannot be saved under any
circumstances or labelled to be not void, merely because the Petitioner
belatedly approached this Court, and more so when such Assessment
Order was sought to be effected/implemented in a recent notice issued
to the Petitioner on 25th November 2025. He submits that there was a
reasonable cause for the delay, and the same has been explained by the
Petitioner at paragraph Nos. 3(xii) to 3(xiv) of the Writ Petition. On
instructions, he also undertakes to withdraw the Appeal filed before the
learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), if this Writ Petition is
allowed.
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considered all rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the
impugned Notice is dated 14th April 2022 and relates to A.Y.2015-16. It
is also not in dispute that the Department has made a concession before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) which reads as
under:-
"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;"
10. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) was followed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel (supra). Paragraph 5 of the said
judgment reads as under:-
"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."
11. Lastly, this Court in Cherian Nallathu (supra) where one of
us (B. P. Colabawalla, J.) was a party, under similar circumstances
quashed the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act
and consequential orders relating to A.Y.2015-16 and granted liberty to
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
the Petitioner to withdraw the pending Appeal before the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
12. As far as the delay is concerned, we note that the Petitioner
has explained the same in her Writ Petition. We may also observe that
since the Department has unequivocally conceded the issue in question
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we do not
deem it appropriate to deny relief to the Petitioner solely on the ground
of delay. Any delay on the part of the Petitioner would not validate a
notice which is otherwise declared to be invalid in the eyes of law, more
so when the Department has initiated recovery proceedings based upon
such notice. We thus find merit in the submissions canvassed on behalf
of the Petitioner that the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the IT
Act and all consequential Orders/Notices for A.Y.2015-16, are bad in
law. Accordingly, the impugned Notice dated 14th April 2022 issued
under Section 148 of the IT Act (Exhibit 'D'), the Assessment Order
(Exhibit 'H'), and all consequential orders/notices including recovery
notices thereof are hereby quashed and set aside.
13. In light of the above, Mr.Walve, on instructions, undertakes
to withdraw the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
11.wp(l).3068.2026.doc
of Income Tax (Appeals), within a period of 2 weeks from the date of
uploading this Order. 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 Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) would stand revived and the same shall be
prosecuted on its own merits and in accordance with law.
14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
15. 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.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
Utkarsh
