Reshma Bhagwandas Rao vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4) Mumbai
2026 Latest Caselaw 2225 Bom

Bombay High Court

Reshma Bhagwandas Rao vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4) Mumbai on 27 February, 2026

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

2026:BHC-OS:5533-DB


                                                                                          sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc



 TRUSHA                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 TUSHAR
 MOHITE                                        ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
TRUSHA TUSHAR
MOHITE
Date: 2026.03.04
15:43:29 +0530


                                                   WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6116 OF 2026
                      Reshma Bhagwandas Rao                                  .. Petitioner

                               Versus

                      Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4),
                      Mumbai & Ors.                                                 .. Respondents

                           Adv. Dharan V. Gandhi a/w Adv. Aanchal Vyas for the Petitioner.
                           Adv. Ravi Rattesar for the Respondents.

                                                             CORAM:     B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                                        FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

                                                             DATE:     FEBRUARY 27, 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 26th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(for short "the Act"), the Order dated 26 th April 2022 passed under Section

148A(d) of the Act, the consequential Assessment Order dated 26 th February

2024 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Act,

and the Notice of Demand dated 26th February 2024. The Assessment Year in

question is A. Y. 2015-16.

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc

3. Brief facts of the case are that a Show Cause Notice under

Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 30 th March 2022 alleging that

income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thereafter, an order dated

26th April 2022 was passed under Section 148A(d) holding that it was a fit

case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16.

Accordingly, the impugned Notice dated 26 th April 2022 came to be issued to

the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Act. The proceedings finally

culminated into an Assessment Order dated 26 th February 2024 passed under

Section 147, read with Section 144 and 144B, of the Act raising a demand

against the Petitioner.

4. Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,

submitted that the Petitioner could not participate in the proceedings as she

was unaware of the notices issued. He pointed out that in the peculiar facts of

the present case, the Petitioner's husband, who used to look after the

financial affairs and tax matters of the family, had passed away after a

prolonged illness. A copy of the death certificate is annexed at Exhibit 'A' to

the Petition. Due to these unfortunate circumstances and the fact that the

Petitioner was not conversant with these matters, she was not aware of the

notices issued electronically and the subsequent orders passed.

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc

5. Be that as it may, Mr. Gandhi submitted that the jurisdictional

issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered in favour of the

Petitioner. He submitted that the impugned Notice under Section 148 is

dated 26th April 2022 and relates to A.Y. 2015-16. 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 Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] .

He also relied upon the decisions of this Court in Cherian Nallathu Abraham

Annamma v. Income-tax Officer [(2025) 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay)],

and Mitra Biswas v. Income Tax Officer [WP (L) No.3068 of 2026 dated

03/02/2026 dated 3rd February, 2026.] in this regard. He also relied upon

the decision of this Court in Bhoomi Viral Shah v. Income-tax Officer [(2024)

165 taxmann.com 682 (Bombay)] to contend that once the notice is without

jurisdiction, all consequential orders must go.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents,

Mr. Rattesar, urged that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an

Appeal against the Assessment Order. He further argued that the Petitioner

has approached this Court belatedly. The Assessment Order was passed in

February 2024, and the present Petition is filed in 2026. He submitted that

on the ground of delay and laches alone, this Writ Petition should not be

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc

entertained. However, he did not dispute the fact that the impugned Notice

relates to A.Y. 2015-16 and that the same has been issued on 26 th April 2022.

7. 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 April

2022. Once these are the facts, the concession made by the Revenue before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) becomes relevant. The

Revenue has categorically conceded that for the A.Y. 2015-16, all notices

issued on or after 1st April 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 (TOLA) .

8. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 26 th

April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped. This view has been consistently

followed by this Court in Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma (supra) and

Mitra Biswas (supra).

9. As regards the contention of the Revenue regarding delay and

laches, we find no merit in the same. Firstly, the peculiar facts regarding the

death of the Petitioner's husband and her lack of awareness of the

proceedings are not disputed by the Revenue. Secondly, and more

importantly, once the notice itself is found to be without jurisdiction, the

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc

delay in approaching the Court cannot validate an action that is void ab initio.

In this regard, reliance placed by Mr. Gandhi on the decision of this Court in

Bhoomi Viral Shah (supra) is apposite. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment

reads as under:

"10. Being a jurisdictional issue, looked from any angle, the notice dated 25 July, 2022 under Section 148 of the Act could not have been issued for the assessment year 2013-14. It is on such notice, the assessment order dated 26 May, 2023 has been passed. We may observe that this is clearly a case where the Assessing Officer has proceeded without jurisdiction and possibly applying the amended provisions of Section 149 as incorporated by the Finance Act to the case in hand when he issued notice dated 25 July, 2022 overlooking the fact that in the present case as the law would stand, the limitation had already expired and within the extended period of limitation as noted by us herein. Thus, once the notice itself was inherently without jurisdiction, the order passed on such notice although was passed without granting hearing to the petitioner, would obviously be rendered illegal. An order which is ab initio void cannot be saved in any circumstances or labeled to be not illegal and void, merely because the petitioner belatedly approached this Court and more so when such order was sought to be effected/implemented in a recent notice issued to the petitioner under Section 271. Certainly the law would not permit enforcement of an assessment order which does not satisfy the test of law, We, thus, do not accept Mr. Sharma's contention when he submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and/or the petitioner has acquiesced in the impugned assessment order. Any acquiescence to an illegal order can never bring about a situation where the illegality attributed to such an order would stand extinguished and the order can be termed to be legal. The law cannot be read in such manner. Thus, in the present case, an order which is illegal and void ab initio is sought to be given effect to, which cannot be permitted to be done."

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc

(emphasis supplied)

10. To the similar effect, is the order in case of Mitra Biswas (supra),

wherein in Paragraph 12, we have held thus:

"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."

(emphasis supplied)

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 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that

the Notice under Section 148 dated 26th April 2022, and the consequential

orders be quashed and set aside.

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp(l)-6116-2026.doc

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)

and (b), which read thus:-

"(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, computation sheet, notice of demand and the consequential notice for penalty all dated 26.02.2024 (Exhibit I);

(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the said notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.04.2022 (Exhibit E), Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.04.2022 (Exhibit D), Show cause notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022 (Exhibit B);"

13. 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.

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.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke