Amita Samir Shah vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8627 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Amita Samir Shah vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), ... on 2 December, 2025

Author: A.S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia

                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/707/2023                            ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

                                                                                                        undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 707 of 2023

                      ==================================================
                                               AMITA SAMIR SHAH
                                                       Versus
                            THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD & ANR.
                      ==================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR MOHIT R BALANI(12259) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      ==================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                                  and
                                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                      Date : 02/12/2025

                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohit Balani for the petitioner

and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the

respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged notices issued under section 148

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the Assessment

Year 2015-2016 under the old regime in view of TOLA without

issuing notice under section 148A(b) as required to be issued with

effect from 01.04.2021.

3. Notice under section 148 under The Taxation and Other Laws

(Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 [(2020) 422 ITR

(St.) 116] (For short "TOLA") was issued on 08.04.2021 whereas

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after judgment in case of

Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444

ITR 1 (SC) was issued on 20.06.2022.

3. The respondent Assessing Officer has issued notice under

section 148 of the Act after 08.04.2021 on the pretext that due to

operation of TOLA, time limit for issuance of notice would be

extended upto 30.06.2021.

4. Thereafter, considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in

case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), notice issued under section 148

between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-2016

was deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Act which has

come into operation with effect from 01.04.2021 and thereafter as

per the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish

Agarwal (supra) department has issued the notices under section

148 of the Act between the month of July, 2022 and August, 2022

after following the procedure of inviting reply and passing order

under section 148A(d) of the Act.

5. The petitioners challenged such notices issued by the

respondent Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2015-2016

pursuant to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

Agarwal (supra).

6. During the pendency of these petitions, similar notices which

were issued for Assessment Years 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 came up

for consideration on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of

getting valid sanction before this Court and other High Courts. This

Court in case of Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd vs. ITO reported in

[2023] 147 taxamann.com 585 (Guj) allowed such petitions.

7. The matter was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in

(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) decided the issues raised with regard to

delay as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act which has come

into operation after 01.04.2021 as well as validity of sanction granted

under section 155 of the Act.

8. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

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).

9. 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.com 144 (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 A.Y. 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 for Revenue Department 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

grounds urged in 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 for the 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 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.

6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 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.

8. The relief in terms of prayer (a) is granted.

9. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

11. Similar orders are also passed by the Apex Court in the

following cases:

1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1) and ors vs. Nehal Ashit Shah in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 57209/2024;

2) The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur vs. R.K.Build Creations Private Limited in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024.

12. The Delhi High Court has also passed the similar order in

following cases:

1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi).

2) Lalit Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi);

13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision

in case of Jay Jay Agro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I,

Karnal & Anr in CWP 7405/2025.

14. Rajasthan High Court has also taken similar decision in case of

Shreyansh Mehta S/o Shri Shanti Lal Mehta, vs. Income Tax Officer,

Udaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 3299/2023.

15. Karnataka High Court has also taken similar decision in case of

Shri Siddaiah Gurappaji vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

Tax and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 20292 of 2023.

16. This Court also in case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

and another (order dated 17.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil

Application No.3154 of 2022 and allied matters) has held as under:

"15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent-Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd(Supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 2015-16, all the notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 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 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021.

16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred."

17. In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, the petition is

allowed. The impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act for

Assessment Year 2015-2016 is held to be invalid as same was issued

during the extended period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/707/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

TOLA.

18. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni/53