[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Soham Developers Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2026:BHC-OS:5267-DB
sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA
TUSHAR ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
MOHITE
Digitally signed by
TRUSHA TUSHAR
MOHITE
Date: 2026.02.26
14:27:22 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2025
Soham Developers Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 15(3)(2)- Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Devendra H. Jain & Adv. Shashank A. Mehta for the Petitioner.
Adv. Ankita Singh i/b Adv. Swapna Gokhle for the Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2026
P. C.
1. 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 26 th July 2022 (Exhibit G and
H); (ii) the reassessment order dated 29 th May 2023 passed under Section 147
read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act; (iii) the notice of
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc
demand of even date under Section 156 of the Act for the Assessment Year
('A.Y.') 2015-16 (Exhibit N); as well as the consequential penalty notices.
3. It is contended by Mr. Devendra Jain, the learned Counsel for
Petitioner that though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the
petition can be disposed on the solitary ground of the notice under Section
148 being barred by limitation. It is contended by the Petitioner that the
Notice issued under Section 148 for A.Y.2015-16 is dated 26 th July 2022.
Since it is issued after 1 st April 2021, it is without jurisdiction and has to be
withdrawn in light of the concession made by the Income Tax Department
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024]
167 taxmann.com 70. Further, reliance is placed on the order dated 2 nd April
2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak Steel and
Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 and
an order dated 4th April 2025 passed in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Nehal Ashit
Shah [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No (s) 57209 of 2024] . Further, our attention is also
drawn to the decision of this Court in Verjinia Foods Limited v. The Income
Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan [W.P.No. 1428 of 2023, decided on 6-10-
2025]. Once the Notice under Section 148 is bad in law, all the consequential
orders/notices would also not survive, is the submission.
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the
above factual position.
5. 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 26 th July
2022 which is at page 189 of the paper book. Once these are the facts,
paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the 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
reassessment 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 Within 3 Expiry of Limitation Within six Expiry of Limitation
Year Years read with TOLA for Years read with TOLA for
(2) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021
2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc
2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not 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)
6. 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 assessment year is A.Y. 2015-2016, and the Notice under Section
148 is dated 26th July 2022. Therefore, the said Notice would have to be
dropped as per the concession recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajeev Bansal (supra).
7. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently
followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd.
(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:-
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc
"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)
8. 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 v.
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."
9. Lastly, this very Bench, on 6th October 2025, in the matter of
Verjinia Foods Limited (supra) , has allowed the petition filed by the
Petitioner therein by noting that since the notice under Section 148 was
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc
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).
10. 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 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that
the notice under Section 148 dated 26th July 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.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the Writ Petition is
also disposed of in terms thereof. No orders as to cost. We also make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on the other grounds raised in the
petition.
12. 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 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
