Bombay High Court
SURJIT BHOJSINGH AILSINGHANIversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27(3) AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rule Made Absolute
Holding
The order reviving the assessment under Section 148 was invalid because the sanction was obtained under Section 151(i) after the statutory deadline, and therefore the notice must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, an individual taxpayer, challenged the revival of his Assessment Year 2016-17 assessment by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The department had obtained sanction for the reassessment from the Principal Commissioner under Section 151(i) after the three‑year limitation period had expired, despite the Supreme Court’s clarification that such sanction should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) when the limitation expired between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021. The High Court examined the applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and held that the sanction under Section 151(i) was invalid as it extended beyond 30 June 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 on 29 July 2022 was beyond the permissible period and the department lacked jurisdiction to revive the assessment. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 13 January 2026 and allowed the writ petition. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the sanction obtained under Section 151(i) of the Income‑tax Act was valid for reviving assessment for AY 2016‑17 after the three‑year limitation period expired.
- Whether the provisions of TOLA 2020 extend the sanction period beyond 30 June 2021 for assessments whose limitation expired between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021.
- Whether the notice issued under Section 148 on 29 July 2022 was issued within the permissible time and thus valid.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 143(3), 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(i), 151(ii)
- Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 — s. 3(1)
Subjects
- Income Tax
- Section 148
- Section 151
- Reassessment
- TOLA
- Writ Petition
- Jurisdiction
- Quash Order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36258-DB
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2026
Surjit Bhojsingh Ailsinghani .. Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 27(3), Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Vasudev Ginde, with Adv. Kumar Kale, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Arjun Gupta, for the Respondent/Revenue.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties,
Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The present Writ Petition challenges the impugned order dated
13th January 2026 passed by Respondent No.1 disposing of the objections
whereby the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the IT Act”) has been revived pursuant to
the Order dated 6th October 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai &
Page 1 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
Ors vs. Surjit Bhojsingh Ailsinghani [Special Leave Petition (SLP)
No. 28634/2025].
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as under:
i. The Petitioner is an Individual who is regularly assessed to tax.
For the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, the Petitioner filed his
Return of Income on 17th October 2016, declaring a total
income of Rs.2,58,35,670/-. This Return of Income was picked
up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act,
and an Assessment Order was passed on 22nd December 2018,
determining his total income of Rs.3,51,66,670/-. The Petitioner
has preferred an appeal against this order, which is stated to be
pending.
ii. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 29th June
2021 under the pre-existing Section 148 of the IT Act, reopening
the Petitioner’s assessment for A.Y. 2016-17.
iii. While the assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT
Act initiated by virtue of the aforesaid notice were pending, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India V/s Ashish
Page 2 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
Agarwal [(2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)] directed
that all notices under Section 148 of the IT Act issued after 31st
March 2021 under the pre-existing regime be treated as notices
under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act and further directed the
Revenue Officers to furnish the relevant material to the
assessees and follow the procedure as per Section 148A of the IT
Act.
iv. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 20th May
2022 to the Petitioner asking the Petitioner to submit his reply
within two weeks. The Petitioner furnished his detailed reply
dated 23rd May 2022 on 3rd June 2022, requesting Respondent
No.1 not to issue any notice under Section 148. Rejecting the
Petitioner’s submissions, Respondent No.1 passed an order
under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act on 29th July 2022, after
obtaining prior approval under Section 151(i) of the IT Act of
Respondent No.2, i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax - 27, Mumbai. A notice dated 29th July 2022 was also
issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the IT Act.
Page 3 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
v. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order under Section
148A(d) of the IT Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of
the IT Act in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 17167 of 2023 filed
before this Court. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a
consolidated Order dated 17th October 2023 along with other
Writ Petitions, wherein, following the judgment of this Court in
Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [Writ
Petition No. 4888 of 2022, dated 25th August 2023],
this Court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the
IT Act and all consequential notices/demand, on the ground
that sanction given under Section 151(i) of the IT Act for
issuance of the said notice under Section 148 was invalid
because the sanction should have been obtained under Section
151(ii) of the IT Act since the period of three years from the end
of the Assessment Year 2016-17 had already expired. In this
case, this Court held that the provisions of the Taxation and
Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions)
Act, 2020 (for short “TOLA”) were not applicable for the grant
of sanction under Section 151 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2016-17.
Page 4 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
vi. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed a Special Leave Petition
[SLP (C) No. 28634/2025] against this Court’s aforesaid Order
dated 17th October 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Order dated 6th October
2025, directed Respondent No.1 to dispose of the objections in
terms of law laid down by it in the case of Union of India vs.
Rajeev Bansal [Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 & Ors.].
vii. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated
13th January 2026 rejecting the Petitioner’s objections, and
revived the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section
148 of the IT Act.
viii. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Respondent No.1. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submitted that Respondent No.1 has misread the judgment in Union of India
V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra) inasmuch as he did not appreciate that the
specified authority referred to under Section 151(i) could have granted
sanction for A.Y. 2016-17 only up to 30th June 2021, even after considering
Page 5 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
the extension granted by TOLA. In the Petitioner’s case, however, the order
under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act was passed on 29th July 2022, and also
the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 29th July 2022.
Therefore, a sanction under Section 151(ii) of the IT Act was necessary.
However, in the Petitioner’s case, a sanction was obtained from the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(i) of the IT Act, which is not
valid. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Memon Chamber of Commerce vs. Income
Tax Officer Exemption Ward, 2(1), Mumbai and Ors [Writ
Petition (L) No. 36619 OF 2025 decided on 9th December 2025],
wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the Assessee following this
Court’s judgment in Ramesh Bachulal Mehta V/s. Income Tax
Officer [(2025) 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bombay)].
5. The Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that
Respondent No.1 erred in holding that the notice under Section 148 of the IT
Act dated 29th July 2022 was issued within the surviving time of 73 days
(period from 19th April 2021 to 30th June 2021) from 10th June 2022 as
discussed in paragraph 111 of the judgment in Union of India V/s Rajeev
Bansal (supra), which, according to Respondent No. 1, expired on 31st
August 2022. Without going into the legality of the Respondent No.1’s stand
Page 6 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
justifying sanction obtained under Section 151(i) on this basis, the Counsel
for the Petitioner submitted that for the sake of argument, even if one
assumes that the surviving time is applicable for the purpose of grant of
sanction under Section 151, yet Respondent No.1 erred in computing the said
period inasmuch as Respondent No.1 wrongly took the date of issuance of
notice under Section 148 [which is deemed to be the notice under Section
148A(b) as per Union of India V/s Ashish Agarwal (supra)] as 19th April
2021 instead of the correct date of 29th June 2021, and therefore, the said
period would stand reduced to 2 days instead of 73 days. Thus, even if one
were to adopt the reasoning of Respondent No.1, then the surviving period
would expire on 5th June 2022, (i.e., 2 days after the date on which the
Petitioner filed reply on 3rd June 2022), and not on 31st August 2022 as
claimed by Respondent No.1. in the impugned order. Thus, even by the
Respondent No.1’s own stand, the notice under Section 148 dated 29th July
2022 was issued beyond three years after obtaining sanction under Section
151(i), which is invalid.
6. Mr. Arjun Gupta, learned Counsel for the Revenue, supported
the impugned order.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Page 7 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
8. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the
Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completion on 31st March 2020. We,
therefore, find that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court
in Ramesh Bachulal Mehta (supra), wherein it was held thus:
“9. In the present case the period of three years from
the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for
completion on 31st March 2020. Since the expiry date
fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st
March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of
Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment
of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"), the
authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new
regime could have granted sanction till 30th June 2021.
On perusal of the order, dated 13.07.2022, passed
under Section 148A(d) of the Act, we find that the
aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent
No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed after the
expiry of three years from the end of the Assessment
Year 2016-17, as per the substituted provisions of re-
assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii)
of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief
Commissioner) was required to grant approval.
Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case the
approval has been obtained from the authority
specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime instead
of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the
new regime.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has
drawn an illustration in paragraph 78 of it's order in
the context of Assessment Year 2017-18, wherein it is
categorically held that the authority specified under
Section 151(i) can accord sanction only upto
30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear
that when the period of three years from end of
relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020
and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was
upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said
Page 8 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
that the period of three years from the end of the
relevant Assessment Year (here AY 2016-17) expired on
30.06.2021, whereas the Respondent No.1, despite
passing the order on 13.07.2022 in respect of
Assessment Year 2016-17, has obtained approval of
Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed
under Section 151(ii).
11. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the
provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with
Section 151(ii) vitiates the jurisdiction of the Respondent
No. 1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act.
12. We are clearly of the view that the present matter
stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of UPI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). We
accordingly hold that the order dated 13.07.2022
passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the
consequential notice issued under Section 148 dated
15.07.2022 are bad in law for being violative of the
provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence they are
required to be quashed and set aside.”
9. We, therefore, find that the impugned order dated 13th January
2026 passed by Respondent No.1 is, in fact, contrary to what the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held in paragraph 78 of its order in Union of India V/s
Rajeev Bansal (supra). We thus note that even if the order in Siemens
Financial Services Private Limited (supra) stands set aside by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra) on the ground
of applicability of the provisions of TOLA to Section 151, yet the sanction
under Section 151(i) of the IT Act obtained by Respondent No.1 in the
Petitioner’s case for the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148
is still invalid as it was beyond 30th June 2021. Therefore, we are of the clear
Page 9 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
view that on the facts of the Petitioner’s case, the judgment in Union of India
Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) is in favour of the Petitioner on the issue of
sanction under Section 151. Respondent No.1, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to
revive the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act, which he sought
to do by virtue of the impugned order dated 13th January 2026. Therefore,
the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 is required to be quashed and
set aside.
10. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned order dated
13th January 2026 passed by Respondent No.1 whereby he revived the
proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act and commenced assessment
proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act, and allow this Writ Petition in
terms of Prayer Clause (a), which reads thus:
“(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case
and after going into the legality and propriety thereof,
to quash and set aside impugned order disposing
objections dated 13.01.2026 (“Exhibit – N”).”
11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
Page 10 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-WP-5849-2026.doc
12. 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.
[FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 11 of 11
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Darshan Patil
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2026 18:41:21
Checking your session…