PRABHATBHAI MAHADEVBHAI DESAI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (2)(1)(1), SURAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Case type
- SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
- Decided on
- 10-03-2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1842 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
PRABHATBHAI MAHADEVBHAI DESAI
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (2)(1)(1),
SURAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAIMIN A GANDHI(8065) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VIRESH I RUDALAL(13206) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 10/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaımın A. Gandhi for the
petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan
Sanghani 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 in view of
TOLA without issuing notice under section 148A(b) as
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
required to be issued with effect from 01.04.2021.
3. Notice under section 148 under Taxation and Other Laws
(Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 [(2020)
422 ITR (St.) 116] (For short "TOLA") was issued on
30.06.2021 whereas 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
24.05.2022.
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.
5. 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.
6. The petitioners challenged such notices issued by the
respondent Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2015-2016
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
pursuant to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish
Agarwal (supra).
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
10. 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
Α.Υ. 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 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
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
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
period 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 1s
concerned 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.”
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
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
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 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
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/1842/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
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 of to
be Deepak Steel and Power Ltd(Supra) and in view 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 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 TOLA.
18. Petition is accordingly disposed off. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIMAL /87
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 12:00:07 IST 2026