TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T] captioned Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna Vs. The Income Tax Officer and others [NC:2024 KHC:19107]. 2. The respondent [Assessee] had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 20.03.2022 issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] for the assessment year [AY] 2015-16 on the ground that the said notice did not provide sufficient time for the Assessee to file a response to show cause calling upon him to show cause why it was not a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 3. The learned Single Judge has found merit in the aforesaid contention and accordingly, set aside the impugned notice as well as the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148A (d) of the Act and further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where,- (a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or (b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of seven days to respond to the said notice. 6. The impugned notice is contrary to law as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge. 7. In addition to the above, it is also relevant to note that the impugned notice was issued in respect of AY 2015-2016. Pursuant to the impugned notice, an order dated 31.03.2022 was passed under Section 148(d) of the Act, holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The question, whether such notices issued in respect of the Assessment Year, 2015- 2016 were sustainable was a subject matter of observation by the Supreme Court of India, in Union of India V. Rajiv Bansal [2024 INSC 754]. During the said proceedings, it was readily conceded by the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pletion during the period prescribed under TOLA." 8. In view of the concession made by the Revenue in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the reassessment proceedings in the present case would also require to be dropped. 9. It is also relevant to note that in the subsequent decision in Deepak Steel and Power Limited V. CBDT [Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025 decided on 02.04.2025], the attention of the Supreme Court was also drawn to the concession made by the Revenue in Rajeev Bansal (Supra). The said appeal emanated from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, declining to entertain a batch of petitions. The Supreme Court noted the concession made on behalf of the Revenue and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions, which ....