TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort "the IT Act"), consequential Assessment Order dated 19th February 2024, and the Recovery Notices dated 25th July 2025 and 21st November 2025 for the A.Y.2015-16. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued on 28th March 2022 alleging that an immovable property acquired by the Petitioner revealed that income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset had escaped assessment. The Petitioner was asked to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued to her. The Petitioner claims that she was unable to respond to the Show Cause Notice as she was completely unaware about initiation of such proceedings. Thereafter, an order dated 14th April 2022 was pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Rajeev Bansal (Supra). In view of the same, he submits that the impugned Notice dated 14th April 2022 issued to the Petitioner is time-barred and should be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Walve also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. V/S Central Board of Direct Taxes [(2025) 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that for A.Y.2015-16, all notices under Section 148 of the IT Act issued after 1st April 2021 would be liable 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. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rattesar, the learned counsel appearing for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Order which is void ab initio cannot be saved under any circumstances or labelled to be not void, merely because the Petitioner belatedly approached this Court, and more so when such Assessment Order was sought to be effected/implemented in a recent notice issued to the Petitioner on 25th November 2025. He submits that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, and the same has been explained by the Petitioner at paragraph Nos. 3(xii) to 3(xiv) of the Writ Petition. On instructions, he also undertakes to withdraw the Appeal filed before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), if this Writ Petition is allowed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered all rival submissions. It is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as the delay is concerned, we note that the Petitioner has explained the same in her Writ Petition. We may also observe that since the Department has unequivocally conceded the issue in question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we do not deem it appropriate to deny relief to the Petitioner solely on the ground of delay. Any delay on the part of the Petitioner would not validate a notice which is otherwise declared to be invalid in the eyes of law, more so when the Department has initiated recovery proceedings based upon such notice. We thus find merit in the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act and all consequential Orders/Notices for A.Y.2015-....