Gujarat High Court
Dharmadev Developers vs Income Tax Department, Assessment ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14191 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
DHARMADEV DEVELOPERS
Versus
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS
ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA(2058) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHAILEE S MEHTA(5873) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sudhir M.
Mehta for the petitioner and learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D.
Mehta for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the notice under section 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short
"the Act") dated 31.07.2022 and
consequential order dated 30.05.2023 under
section 147 read with section 144B of the
Act on the ground that the notice would be
invalid and time barred.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the
respondent Assessing Officer issued notice
dated 15.06.2021 under section 148 of the
Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014
during the extended time period as per
Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of
Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
[(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (For short
"TOLA").
4. In view of the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Union of India and
others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in
(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid
notice was to be treated as notice under
section 148A(b) of the Act which has come
into statute with effect from 01.04.2021.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported
in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) has laid down
the law to consider such notice as valid
notice or invalid notice depending upon
the surviving time left between the date
of issuance of notice under section 148 of
the Act read with section 3(1) of TOLA
upto 30.06.2021 and the issuance of notice
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
under section 148 pursuant to the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra).
6. This Court in case of Dhanraj
Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer,
Ward(2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated
08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil
Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied
matters) has considered in detail the
submissions made by both the sides and has
held as under:
"65. The alternative contention of
the petitioner as to whether
notices would be valid notice or
invalid notice considering
'surviving time' between the date
of the issuance of notices under
TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is
required to be considered and for
that each matter has to be
considered separately on the basis
of the facts of case considering
the date of issuance of notices
under section 148 under TOLA by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
the Revenue and thereafter date of
supplying information to the
assessee and date of passing of
order under section 148A(d) and
date of issuance of notice under
section 148 of the Act so as to
consider whether issuance of
notice under section 148 of the
Act is within 'surviving time' as
per the direction of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Rajeev Bansal
(supra) or not.
66. So far as Assessment Years
2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are
concerned, the period of three
years from the end of the
assessment year would be over
prior to 20.03.2020 and the period
of six years would be over between
20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021.
Therefore, the notices issued
under section 148 of the Act under
old regime between 01.04.2021 and
30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a
valid notice if the notice under
section 148 of the Act under new
regime is issued within the period
of 'surviving time' as per the
directions issued by Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Rajeev Bansal
(supra). For the Assessment Years
2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are
concerned, the notice issued under
section 148 of the Act under old
regime between 01.04.2021 and
30.06.2021 under TOLA would be
considered to be issued within
three years from the end of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
relevant assessment year as three
years would complete within the
period of 20.03.2020 and
30.06.2021.
67. Therefore, in facts of these
petitions, following data is
required to be considered to find
out 'surviving time' to decide as
to whether the impugned notices
under section 148 of the Act
issued under the new regime as per
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra)
would be valid notice or not in
view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Rajeev Bansal (supra):
SCA NO AY Date of No of days Date of
notice under of surviving providing
section 148 time information
under TOLA available under
till section
30.06.2021 148A(b)
6387/2023 2013-2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022
5688/2023 2014-2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022
22260/2022 2016-2017 30.06.2021 1 23.05.2022
996/2023 2017-2018 30.06.2021 1 24.05.2022
SCA NO Due date Date of Date of Last date for issuance
of filing reply:- order of notice under
reply under section 148 as per
section surviving time:-
148A(d)
and notice
under
section
148:-
6387/2023 09.06.2022 04.06.2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022
5688/2023 06.06.2022 - 27.07.2022 27.06.2022
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
22260/2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022
996/2023 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022
68. It is apparent from the above
details that impugned notice under
section 148 of the Act is issued
beyond the period of 'surviving
time' as per the direction of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Rajeev Bansal (supra)and
therefore, such notices would be
invalid notices.
69.The impugned notices issued
under section 148 of the Act are
accordingly quashed and set aside
being invalid having been issued
beyond the 'surviving time'.
Accordingly, impugned orders
passed under section 148A(d) of
the Act would also not survive and
are accordingly, quashed and set
aside. Subsequent proceedings, if
any, undertaken by the respondent
would not survive and are also
quashed and set aside.
70. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to
costs."
7. In the facts of the case, the
respondent Assessing Officer has provided
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
information pursuant to the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 30.05.2022
and therefore, considering 15 days' time
to file reply by the assessee, the due
date would be 20.06.2022. The petitioner
filed reply on 15.06.2022. The order under
section 148A(d) of the Act as well as
notice under section 148 of the Act was
issued on 31.07.2022. However, considering
the period of limitation from the date of
issuance of notice under section 148 read
with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation
for issuance of notice under section 148
of the Act applying the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish
Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal
(supra), would be 05.07.2022.
8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Maithili D. Mehta has verified the above
dates and could not controvert the same.
9. In view of above, the impugned notice
dated 31.07.2022 issued under section 148
of the Act would be invalid notice as the
said notice is issued after 05.07.2022 as
per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Therefore,
the impugned notice having been issued
beyond the 'surviving time' would be
invalid notice as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in
the following paragraph no. 114 (g) and
(h) of the judgment:
"114. In view of the above discussion, we
conclude that:
xxx
(g) The time during which the show-cause
notices were deemed to be stayed is from the
date of issuance of the deemed notice between
April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 till the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14191/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
supply of relevant information and material by
the Assessing Officers to the assessees in
terms of the directions issued by this court in
Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444
ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] , and the
period of two weeks allowed to the assessees
to respond to the show-cause notices; and
(h) The Assessing Officers were
required to issue the reassessment
notice under section 148 of the new
regime within the time limit surviving
under the Income-tax Act read with the
Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation
and Amendment of Certain Provisions)
Act, 2020. All notices issued beyond
the surviving period are time barred
and liable to be set aside."
10. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned
notice dated 31.07.2022 is hereby quashed
and set aside and all consequential
proceedings are also quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
