RAJESH MANSUKHLAL GADOYA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Case type
- SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
- Decided on
- 12-03-2026
C/SCA/20541/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20541 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
RAJESH MANSUKHLAL GADOYA
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT
==================================================
Appearance:
MR FENIL H MEHTA(11663) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 12/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Fenil H. Mehta for the petitioner and
learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik for the respondent.
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 by placing reliance on the provisions of
the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance,
2020 [(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (For short “TOLA”).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notice was issued
without complying Section 148A(b) of the Act, as required to be issued
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:17 IST 2026
C/SCA/20541/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
with effect from 01.04.2021, under the new regime governing reopening
provisions which had came into force. The notice under section 148 of the
Act came to be issued on 04.06.2021, whereas notice under Section
148A(b) of the Act was issued after 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), adjudicated upon the validity of reopening notices during the
interregnum period.
4. The respondent Assessing Officer has issued notice under section
148 of the Act after 31.03.2021 on the pretext that due to operation of
TOLA, time limit for issuance of notice would be extended upto 30.06.2021.
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. 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 taxmann.com
585 (Guj) allowed such petitions.
6. The matter was carried to Hon’ble Apex Court wherein Hon’ble
Apex 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
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:17 IST 2026
C/SCA/20541/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
01.04.2021 as well as validity of sanction granted under section 155 of the
Act. 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 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).
7. 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 unde r:
“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 grounds urged in the present
petition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in those
orders.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:17 IST 2026
C/SCA/20541/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
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.”
8. 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.
9. 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)
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:17 IST 2026
C/SCA/20541/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
2) Lalit Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi);
10. 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
11. 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.
12. Karnataka High Court has also taken similar decision in case of Shri
Siddaiah Gurappaji vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and
Ors., in Writ Petition No. 20292 of 2023.
13. 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.”
14. In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed.
The impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act for Assessment
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:17 IST 2026
C/SCA/20541/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
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 TOLA.
15. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni/13(separate Board)
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 18:02:17 IST 2026