Shri. Siddaiah Gurappaji Vs the Assistant Commissioner

SHRI. SIDDAIAH GURAPPAJI AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, R/AT NO.960, 24^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶15

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT/VERIFICATION UNIT/ TECHNICAL UNIT/REVIEW UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2^ND FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶16

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-2, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶17

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:15976 WP No. 20292 of 2023

¶20

KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, GROUND FLOOR, C.R.BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.M DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/03/2022 BEARING ITBA/AST/F/148A/202122/1042295484(1) PASSED BY THE R1 UNDER S.148A(D) FOR AY 2015-16 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶28

(i) Quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/202122/1042295484(1) passed by the 1^st Respondent under S.148A(d) for AY 2015-16 (Annexure-A);

¶29

(ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated 01.04.2022 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148-1/202223/1042416718(1) issued by the 1^st Respondent under S.148 for AY 2015-16 (Annexure-B);

¶30

(iii) Quashing the impugned notice dated 08.08.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/202324/1054959809(1) issued by the 2^nd Respondent under Section 142(1) for AY 2015-16 (Annexure-C); and

¶31

(iv) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:15976 WP No. 20292 of 2023

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶35

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned orders and notices in order to point out that the proceedings relating to assessment year 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 of the I.T.Act ought to have been issued on or before 31.03.2021 and any notice issued after the aforesaid date including the instant notice issued on 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others vs.Rajeev Bansal - (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others vs. Nehal Ashit Shah – SLP (Civil) Diary No.(S) – 57209/2024 Dated 04.04.2025. It is therefore submitted that the impugned orders/ Notices deserve to be quashed.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – Revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be set aside.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:15976 WP No. 20292 of 2023

¶40

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

¶41

petitioner, the material on record discloses that the impugned proceedings is relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16 in respect of the petitioner; however, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents issued impugned notice at Annexure-B under Section 148 of the I.T.Act on 01.04.2022, beyond the period of limitation and the same has already been held not to be permissible by the Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal’s case supra, which reads as under:-

¶42

“19(e). The Finance Act, ([2021]) 431 ITR (St.) 52) substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 3 of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies to the entire Income-Tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, then all the notices issued between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 201617, and 2017-18 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

¶43

Assessment year (1)	Within 3 years (2)	Expiry of limitation read with TOLA for (3)	Within six years (4)	Expiry of limitation read with TOLA for (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
2015-2016	31-3-2019	TOLA not applicable	31-3-2022	TOLA not applicable
2016-2017	31-3-2020	30-06-2021	31-3-2023	TOLA not applicable
2017-2018	31-3-2021	30-06-2021	31-3-2024	TOLA not applicable

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:15976 WP No. 20292 of 2023

¶46

19(f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, 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;

¶47

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-22 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten-years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 201213, the ten-year period would have expired on March 31, 2023, while the six-year period expired on March 31, 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-13 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.

¶48

6. Subsequently, in Nehal Ashit’s case supra also, the

¶49

Apex Court reiterated the very same position and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the notice issued after 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation and the impugned proceedings are not permissible beyond period of limitation. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the impugned proceedings

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:15976 WP No. 20292 of 2023

¶52

is relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16, while the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 01.04.2022 was issued beyond/after 01.04.2021 which is impermissible in law and barred by limitation and consequently, the impugned orders/notices etc., deserve to be quashed.

¶53