High Court of Gujarat
GORDHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI KAPADIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S KAPADIA BROTHERSversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Holding
The notice under section 148 dated 27‑07‑2022 was issued beyond the surviving time and is invalid, rendering the order under section 148A(d) void.
Summary
The petitioner, GORDHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI KAPADIA, challenged a notice issued under section 148 of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013‑14‑2017‑18 and the subsequent order under section 148A(d). The High Court examined the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which define a ‘surviving time’ for reassessment notices under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. By analysing the dates of notice issuance, information supply, and reply, the Court found that the notice dated 27‑07‑2022 was issued after the permissible deadline of 11‑07‑2022. Consequently, the notice was held invalid and the order under section 148A(d) was set aside. All consequential proceedings were quashed and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income‑Tax Act is valid when issued beyond the ‘surviving time’ as defined by Supreme Court precedents.
- Whether the order passed under section 148A(d) stands when the underlying notice is invalid.
- How the limitation period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 interacts with the reassessment provisions of the Income‑Tax Act.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 148, s. 148A(b), s. 148A(d)
Subjects
Income TaxSection 148Section 148AReassessmentLimitation periodSurviving timeTOLASupreme Court precedentQuashing notice
Judgment
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9146 of 2023
==========================================================
GORDHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI KAPADIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S KAPADIA
BROTHERS
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHINAL A SHAH(12077) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 16/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhinal A. Shah for
the petitioner and learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr.Maunil Yajnik for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed challenging the
notice issued under section 148 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) dated
27.07.2022 and the order under Section 148A(d)
of the Act dated 26.07.2022.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the
respondent Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice
dated 04.06.2021 under section 148 of the Act
for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-2014 during
the extended time period as per Taxation and
Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions)
Page 1 of 7
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
Ordinance, 2020 [(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (for
short “TOLA”).
4. In view of the decision of Apex Court in the
case of Union of India and others v. Ashish
Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid
notice was to be treated as notice under
section 148A(b) of the Act, which has come into
statute with effect from 01.04.2021.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Union of
India v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)
has laid down the law to consider such notice as
valid notice or invalid notice depending upon
the surviving time left between the date of
issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act
read with section 3(1) of TOLA upto 30.06.2021
and the issuance of notice under section 148 of
the Act pursuant to the directions issued by the
Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra).
6. This Court in the case of Dhanraj
Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward(2),
Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025
rendered in Special C ivil Application No.6387
of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in
detail the submissions made by both the sides
and has held as under:
Page 2 of 7
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
“65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as
to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid
notice considering ‘surviving time’ between the date
of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June,
2021 or not is required to be considered and for that
each matter has to be considered separately on the
basis of the facts of case considering the date of
issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by
the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying
information to the assessee and date of passing of
order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of
notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider
whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the
Act is within ‘surviving time’ as per the direction
of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal
(supra) or not.
66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and2014-
2015 are concerned, the period of three years from
the end of the assessment year would be over prior to
20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over
between 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. Therefore, the
notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old
regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA,
will be a valid notice if the notice under section
148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the
period of ‘surviving time’ as per the directions
issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal
(supra). For the Assessment Years 2016-2017 and
2017-2018 are concerned, the notice issued under
section 148 of the Act under old regime between
01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be
considered to be issued within three years from the
end of the relevant assessment year as three years
would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and
30.06.2021.
67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following
data is required to be considered to find out
‘surviving time’ to decide as to whether the impugned
notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the
new regime as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid
notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra):
Page 3 of 7
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
SCA NO AY Date No of Date of
of days of providing
notice surviving informati
under time on under
section available section
148 under till 148A(b)
TOLA 30.06.2021
6387/2023 2013-2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022
5688/2023 2014-2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022
22260/2022 2016-2017 30.06.2021 1 23.05.2022
996/2023 2017-2018 30.06.2021 1 24.05.2022
SCA NO Due date Date of Date of Last date for
of filing reply:- order issuance of
reply under notice under
section section 148 as
148A(d) per surviving
and time:-
notice
under
section
148:-
6387/2023 09.06.2022 04.06.2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022
5688/2023 06.06.2022 - 27.07.2022 27.06.2022
22260/2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022
996/2023 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022
68. It is apparent from the above details that
impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is
issued beyond the period of ‘surviving time’ as per
the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev
Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would be
invalid notices.
69. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of
the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being
invalid having been issued beyond the ‘surviving
time’. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under
section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and
are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent
proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent
would not survive and are also quashed and set aside.
Page 4 of 7
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
order as to costs.”
7. In the facts of the case, the AO has
provided information pursuant to the directions
issued by the Apex Court in the case of Ashish
Agarwal (supra) on 31.05.2022 and therefore,
considering 15 days’ time to file reply by the
assessee, the due date would be 15.06.2022. The
petitioner filed reply on 13.06.2022. The order
under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on
26.07.2022 and notice under section 148 of the
Act was issued on 27.07.2022. However,
considering the period of limitation from the
date of issuance of notice under section 148 of
the Act read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the
limitation for issuance of notice under section
148 of the Act applying the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as
well as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be
11.07.2022.
8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Karan
Sanghani has verified the above facts and could
not controvert the same.
Page 5 of 7
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
9. In view of above, the impugned notice dated
27.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act
would be invalid notice as the said notice is
issued after 11.07.2022 as per the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal
(supra). Therefore, the impugned notice having
been issued beyond the ‘surviving time’ would be
invalid notice as held by the Apex Court in the
case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the following
paragraph No.114(g) and 114(h) of the judgment:
“114. In view of the above discussion, we
conclude that:
xxx
(g) The time during which the show-cause notices were
deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of
the deemed notice between April 1, 2021 and June 30,
2021 till the supply of relevant information and
material by the Assessing Officers to the assessees
in terms of the directions issued by this court in
Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1
(SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] , and the period of
two weeks allowed to the assessees to respond to the
show-cause notices; and
(h) The Assessing Officers were required to issue the
reassessment notice under section 148 of the new
regime within the time limit surviving under the
Income-tax Act read with the Taxation and other Laws
(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,
2020. All notices issued beyond the surviving period
are time barred and liable to be set aside.”
10. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned
order dated 26.07.2022 and impugned notice dated
27.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside and
Page 6 of 7
C/SCA/9146/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2026
all consequential proceedings are also quashed
and set aside. The present writ petition stands
allowed.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NVMEWADA/61
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: NEHABEN VINODBHAI MEWADA(HC01571), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/06/2026 17:29:43
Page 7 of 7
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Income Tax"Sign in to search