Narayan Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Or His Successor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1227 of 2023 ==========================================================NARAYAN DYESTUFF PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1) OR HIS SUCCESSOR ========================================================== Appearance:MR SN DIVATIA(1378) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 25/08/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.Heard learned advocate Mr. S.N.Divatia for the petitioner and learnedSenior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D.Mehta for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged noticesissued under section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under the oldregime in view of TOLA without issuingnotice under section 148A(b) as requiredto be issued with effect from 01.04.2021. 3. Notice under section 148 under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation ofCertain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020[(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (For short“TOLA”) was issued on 25.06.2021 whereasnotice under section 148A(b) of the Actafter judgment in case of Union of Indiaand others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) was issued on24.05.2022. 4.The respondent Assessing Officer hasissued notice under section 148 of the Actafter 31.03.2021 on the pretext that dueto operation of TOLA, time limit for issuance of notice would be extended upto30.06.2021. 5. Thereafter, considering the decisionof Hon’ble Apex Court in case of AshishAgarwal(supra), notice issued undersection 148 between 01.04.2021 and30.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-2016was deemed to be notice under section148A(b) of the Act which has come intooperation with effect from 01.04.2021 andthereafter as per the direction issued bythe Hon’ble Apex Court in case of AshishAgarwal(supra) department has issued thenotices under section 148 of the Actbetween the month of July,2022 and August,2022 after following the procedure ofinviting reply and passing order undersection 148A(d) of the Act. 6. The petitioners challenged suchnotices issued by the respondent AssessingOfficer for Assessment Year 2015-2016pursuant to the order of Hon’ble ApexCourt in case of Ashish Agarwal(supra). Officer for Assessment Year 2015-2016pursuant to the order of Hon’ble ApexCourt in case of Ashish Agarwal(supra). 7. During the pendency of thesepetitions, similar notices which wereissued for Assessment Years 2013-2014 to2017-2018 came up for consideration on theground of delay as well as on the groundof getting valid sanction before thisCourt and other High Courts. This Court incase of Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd vs.ITO reported in [2023] 147 taxamann.com585 (Guj) allowed such petitions.issued for Assessment Years 2013-2014 to2017-2018 came up for consideration on theground of delay as well as on the groundof getting valid sanction before thisCourt and other High Courts. This Court incase of Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd vs.ITO reported in [2023] 147 taxamann.com585 (Guj) allowed such petitions. 8. The matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court incase of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansalreported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) decidedthe issues raised with regard to delay asper the provisions of section 149 of theAct which has come into operation after01.04.2021 as well as validity of sanctiongranted under section 155 of the Act. 9. 8. The matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court incase of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansalreported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) decidedthe issues raised with regard to delay asper the provisions of section 149 of theAct which has come into operation after01.04.2021 as well as validity of sanctiongranted under section 155 of the Act. 9. During the course of hearing beforethe Hon’ble Apex Court, Revenue concededto the effect that so far as AssessmentYear 2015-2016 is concerned, Revenue couldnot have issued the notices under section3(1) of TOLA as considering the timeperiod as prescribed under section 149 ofthe Act with effect from 01.04.2021, threeyears would be over on 31.03.2019 which isprior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022which is after operation of TOLA. In suchcircumstances, notices for Assessment Year2015-2016 are held to be invalid byHon’ble Apex Court in case of RajeevBansal(supra). 10.The Hon’ble Apex Court followed thedecision of Rajeev Bansal(supra) in caseof Deepak Steel and Power Ltd vs. CentralBoard of Direct Taxes reported in [2025]174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) and afterrecording the concession of the learnedadvocate for the department and in view ofthe concession given before the Apex Courtby learned advocate appearing for theRevenue as recorded in para 19(f) of thejudgment in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra),has quashed and set aside the noticedecision of Rajeev Bansal(supra) in caseof Deepak Steel and Power Ltd vs. CentralBoard of Direct Taxes reported in [2025]174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) and afterrecording the concession of the learnedadvocate for the department and in view ofthe concession given before the Apex Courtby learned advocate appearing for theRevenue as recorded in para 19(f) of thejudgment in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra),has quashed and set aside the notice issued after 31.03.2021 under TOLA for A.Y. 2015-16 as under: “1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the orderpassed by the High Court of Orissa atCuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446of 2023, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023respectively by which the High Courtdisposed of the original writ petitionsin the following terms:- “1. The memo of appearance filed byMr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned SeniorStandingCounselforRevenueDepartment on behalf of OppositeParties is taken on record. 2. In view of the order passed bythis Court on 1st December, 2022 ina batch of writ petitions of whichW.P.(C) No.9191 of 2022 (KailashKedia v. Income Tax Officer) was alead matter and the subsequent orderdated 10th January, 2023 passed inW.P.(C) No.36314 of 2022 (ShivMettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v.Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax, Sambalpur), the Court declinesto entertain the present writpetition, but leaves it open to thePetitioner to raise all groundsavailable to the Petitioner inaccordance with law including thegrounds urged in the presentpetition at the appropriate stage as explained by the Court in thoseorders. 3. The writ petition is disposed ofin the above terms.” 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya,the learned counsel appearing for theappellants(assessee)andMr.Chandrashekhar, the learned counselappearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for therevenue with his usual fairness invitedthe attention of this Court to a threejudge bench decision of this Court inUnion of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal,reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, moreparticularly, paragraph 19(f) which readsthus:- “19. (f) The Revenue concedes thatfor the assessment year 2015- 2016,all notices issued on or after April1, 2021 will have to be dropped asthey will not fall for completionduring the period prescribed underthe Taxation and other Laws(Relaxation and Amendment of CertainProvisions) Act, 2020.” 3. We heard Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya,the learned counsel appearing for theappellants(assessee)andMr.Chandrashekhar, the learned counselappearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for therevenue with his usual fairness invitedthe attention of this Court to a threejudge bench decision of this Court inUnion of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal,reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, moreparticularly, paragraph 19(f) which readsthus:- “19. (f) The Revenue concedes thatfor the assessment year 2015- 2016,all notices issued on or after April1, 2021 will have to be dropped asthey will not fall for completionduring the period prescribed underthe Taxation and other Laws(Relaxation and Amendment of CertainProvisions) Act, 2020.” 5. As the revenue made a concession inthe aforesaid decision that is for theassessment year 2015-2016, all noticesissued on or after 1st April, 2021 willhave to be dropped as they would not fallfor completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and otherlaws (Relaxation and Amendment of certainProvisions Act, 2020). Nothing further isrequired to be adjudicated in this matteras the notices so far as the presentlitigation is concerned is dated25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in suchcircumstances referred to above theoriginal writ petition nos.2446 of 2023,2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023respectively filed before the High Courtof Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein standsquashed and set aside. 8. The relief in terms of prayer (a) isgranted. 9. The appeals stand disposed of in theabove terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, standdisposed 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 Creations PrivateLimited in Special Leave Petition (Civil)Diary No. 59625/2024. 12.The Delhi High Court has also passedthe similar order in following cases: the similar order in following cases: 1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in[2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi)[2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) 2) LalitGulativs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in[2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi);[2025] 174 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi); 13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken similar decision in case of Jay JayAgro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward-I, Karnal & Anr in CWP 7405/2025 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 WritPetition No. 3299/2023.Income Tax Officer, Udaipur in Civil WritPetition No. 3299/2023. 15.Karnataka High Court has also takensimilar decision in case of Shri SiddaiahGurappaji vs. The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax and ors in Writ Petition No.20292 of 2023.similar decision in case of Shri SiddaiahGurappaji vs. The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax and ors in Writ Petition No.20292 of 2023. 16.This Court also in case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabadand another(order dated 17.06.2025of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabadand another(order dated 17.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil ApplicationNo.3154 of 2022 and allied matters) hasheld as under: 15.Karnataka High Court has also takensimilar decision in case of Shri SiddaiahGurappaji vs. The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax and ors in Writ Petition No.20292 of 2023.similar decision in case of Shri SiddaiahGurappaji vs. The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax and ors in Writ Petition No.20292 of 2023. 16.This Court also in case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabadand another(order dated 17.06.2025of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabadand another(order dated 17.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil ApplicationNo.3154 of 2022 and allied matters) hasheld as under: “15. Considering the facts of thecase, it is not in dispute that therespondent-AssessingOfficerhasissued the notice under section148A(b) of the Act after the period ofsix years were over on 31.03.2022. Asobserved by the Hon’ble Apex Court incase ofDeepak Steel and PowerLtd(Supra) and in view of theconcession made by the Revenue beforethe Apex Court for the Assessment Year2015-16, all the notices issued on orafter 01.04.2021 will have to bedropped as they would not fall forcompletionduringtheperiodprescribed under the Taxation andOther Laws (Relaxation and Amendmentof Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 andtherefore, nothing further is requiredto be adjudicated in the matters asthe notice so far as the presentpetitions are concerned, though dated31.03.2021, admittedly have beenissued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that thenotices under section 148A(b) havebeen issued pursuant to the decisionof the Hon’ble Apex Court inAshishAgarwal(supra)dated 04.05.2022admittedlyafter31.03.2022.Therefore, on both counts, the noticesissued under section 148 of the Actdated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.” 17. In view of above, for the foregoingreasons, the petition is allowed. Theimpugned notice issued under section 148of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-2016is held to be invalid as same was issuedduring the extended period from 01.04.2021to 30.06.2021 under TOLA.impugned notice issued under section 148of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-2016is held to be invalid as same was issuedduring the extended period from 01.04.2021to 30.06.2021 under TOLA. 18. Petition is accordingly disposed off. (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: RAGHUNATH RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR(HC00196), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/08/2025 15:06:10Digitally signed by: RAGHUNATH RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR(HC00196), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/08/2025 15:06:10