Soham Developers Private LIMITED-2015-16 vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2)-MUMBAI

The present Petition has been filed primarily with a prayer to quash and set aside (i) the order passed under Section 148A(d), and the Notice issued under Section 148, both dated 26^th July 2022 (Exhibit G and H); (ii) the reassessment order dated 29^th May 2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act; (iii) the notice of

¶16

Page 1 of 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2026

¶17

Mansi shelke

¶18

sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc

¶19

demand of even date under Section 156 of the Act for the Assessment Year ('A.Y.') 2015-16 (Exhibit N); as well as the consequential penalty notices.

¶20

It is contended by Mr. Devendra Jain, the learned Counsel for Petitioner that though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the petition can be disposed on the solitary ground of the notice under Section 148 being barred by limitation. It is contended by the Petitioner that the Notice issued under Section 148 for A.Y.2015-16 is dated 26^th July 2022. Since it is issued after 1^st April 2021, it is without jurisdiction and has to be withdrawn in light of the concession made by the Income Tax Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 . Further, reliance is placed on the order dated 2^nd April 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 and an order dated 4^th April 2025 passed in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No (s) 57209 of 2024] . Further, our attention is also drawn to the decision of this Court in Verjinia Foods Limited v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan [W.P.No. 1428 of 2023, decided on 6-102025] . Once the Notice under Section 148 is bad in law, all the consequential orders/notices would also not survive, is the submission.

¶21

Page 2 of 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2026

¶22

Mansi shelke

¶23

sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc

¶24

The learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the above factual position.

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 26^th July 2022 which is at page 189 of the paper book. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:-

¶26

"19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:-

¶27

a. ….

¶28

e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Incometax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

¶29

Assessment Year	Within 3 Years	Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2)	Within six Years	Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4)
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
2013-2014	31-3-2017	TOLA not applicable	31-3-2020	30-6-2021
2014-2015	31-3-2018	TOLA not applicable	31-3-2021	30-6-2021

¶30

Page 3 of 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2026

¶31

Mansi shelke

¶32

sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc

¶33

2015-2016	31-3-2019	TOLA not applicable	31-3-2022	TOLA not applicable
2016-2017	31-3-2020	30-6-2021	31-3-2023	TOLA not applicable
2017-2018	31-3-2021	30-6-2021	31-3-2024	TOLA not applicable

¶34

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;"

¶35

From the above it is clear that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1^st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the assessment year is A.Y. 2015-2016, and the Notice under Section 148 is dated 26^th July 2022. Therefore, the said Notice would have to be dropped as per the concession recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

¶36

The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

¶37

"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:-

¶38

Page 4 of 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2026

¶39

Mansi shelke

¶40

sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc

¶41

"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 the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."

¶42

As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have 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). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.”

¶43

(emphasis supplied)

¶44

Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble

¶45

Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

¶46

"5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the Learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned."

¶47

Lastly, this very Bench, on 6^th October 2025, in the matter of Verjinia Foods Limited (supra), has allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since the notice under Section 148 was Page 5 of 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2026

¶48

Mansi shelke

¶49

sr.72-wp-95-2025.doc

¶50

issued after 1^st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).

¶51

In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1^st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 26^th July 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.

¶52

Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. No orders as to cost. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the other grounds raised in the petition.

¶53

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶54

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶55

Page 6 of 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2026

¶56

Mansi shelke

Soham Developers Private LIMITED-2015-16 v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2)-MUMBAI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soham Developers Private LIMITED-2015-16 v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2)-MUMBAI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swarna N Mehra (Deleted Since Deceased) and 2 Ors. vs Jade Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Jade Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Swarna N Mehra (Deleted Since Deceased) and 2 Ors.

Indira Rameshchandra Shah vs Sunil Jagmohandas Shah

Narendrakumar Kishanlal Bubna vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City

Saurabh Nitinkumar Jain vs Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment and Ors.

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.