Reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period prescribed under TOLA and Ashish Agarwal is time-barred.

The petitioner challenged a reassessment notice dated 31.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17

Initially, a notice was issued on 29.06.2021 under the old regime, leveraging the extension provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA)

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, this notice was treated as a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b)

Information was provided to the petitioner on 27.07.2022, and the petitioner replied on 05.08.2022

Subsequently, the Revenue passed an order under Section 148A(d) on 30.08.2022 and issued the impugned Section 148 notice on 31.08.2022

Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 31.08.2022 is time-barred and invalid based on the concept of "surviving time" as defined by the Supreme Court

The Court applied the mechanism for transitional reassessment notices established in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022)

The mechanism was further clarified in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024), where the period of limitation for issuing a Section 148 notice (under the new regime) is calculated by determining the "surviving time" left for the Revenue as of 30.06.2021

The Court specifically relied on Paragraph 114 (g) and (h) of Rajeev Bansal, which mandates that notices issued beyond this surviving period are time-barred and liable to be set aside

The Court calculated the "surviving time" by evaluating the status of the limitation period as it stood during the TOLA extensions.

Accounting for the mandatory 15-day response window for the assessee following the supply of information on 27.07.2022, the "surviving time" available to the Revenue to issue a valid Section 148 notice expired on 10.08.2022

Since the respondent issued the impugned notice on 31.08.2022—21 days after the expiration of the limitation period—the Court found the notice to be legally unsustainable

The Revenue could not controvert the calculation of these specific dates

Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice and all consequential proceedings; Rule was made absolute