2025 (6) TMI 1838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Mr B.S. Soparkar (6851).   For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2: Ms Maithili D Mehta (3206).   For the Respondents: Mr Varun Patel.   ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta and Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents in the respective petitions. 2. This group of petitions are filed challenging the notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. In Special Civil Application Nos. 3154 of 2022 and 4001 of 2022, notice dated 31.03.2021 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer for A.Y. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....22 and 4001/2022 are held to be infructuous and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 8. Therefore, we are left with the issue as to whether the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act by the respondent-Assessing Officer in remaining four petitions would survive in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 SC or not? 9. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the subsequent order/decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after recording the concession of the learned advocate for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r order in following cases: • Bhagwan Sahai Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) • Lalit Gulati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi); 12. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision in following case: • Jay Jay Agro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Karnal & Anr in CWP 7405/2025 13. Rajasthan High Court has taken similar decision in following case: • Shreyansh Mehta S/o Shri Shanti Lal Mehta, vs. Income Tax Officer, Udaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 3299/2023. 14. Karnataka High Court has taken similar decision in following case:- • Shri ....