Gujarat High Court
Shri Yandunandan Petroleum Through Its … vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 on 16 April, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4824/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4824 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✔
==================================================
SHRI YANDUNANDAN PETROLEUM THROUGH ITS PROP. NARAN MOHAN
SAVESETA
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1
==================================================
Appearance:
MR SAUBHAGYA MISHRA for MR. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA(18921) 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 MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saubhagya Mishra for Mr. Om Prakash
Shukla for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil
Yajnik for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.
Maunil Yajnik waives service of notice on rule on behalf of the respondent.
3. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For
short “the Act”) dated 12.07.2022 on the ground that the notice would be
invalid and time barred.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:21:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4824/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Assessing Officer
issued notice dated 16.06.2021 under section 148 of the Act for the
Assessment Year 2017-2018 during the extended time period as per The
Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance,
2020 [(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (For short “TOLA”).
5. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of
India and others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (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.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
reported in (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 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra).
7. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax
Officer, Ward(2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in
Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has
considered in detail the submissions made by both the sides and has held
as under:
“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 30 th 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.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:21:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4824/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 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):
SCA NO AY Date of notice under No of days of Date of providing
section 148 under surviving time information
TOLA available till under section
30.06.2021 148A(b)
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 24.05.2022SCA NO Due date of Date of reply:- Date of order Last date for issuance of
filing reply under section notice under section 148 as
148A(d) and per surviving 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 issuedPage 3 of 5
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:21:33 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4824/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
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.
70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.”
8. In the facts of the case, the respondent Assessing Officer has
provided information pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 20.05.2022 and therefore,
considering 15 days’ time to file reply by the assessee, the due date would
be 04.06.2022. No reply is filed by the petitioner. The order under section
148A(d) of the Act was passed on 10.07.2022 as well as notice under
section 148 of the Act was issued on 12.07.2022. However, considering the
period of limitation from the date of issuance of notice under section 148
read with TOLA upto 30.06.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice
under section 148 of the Act applying the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would
be 18.06.2022.
9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik has verified the
above dates and could not controvert the same.
10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 12.07.2022 issued
under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as the said notice is
issued after 18.06.2022 as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Ashish Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the impugned notice having been
issued beyond the ‘surviving time’ would be invalid notice as held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) in the following
paragraph no. 114 (g) and (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,Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:21:33 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4824/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
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.”
11. In view of foregoing reasons, impugned notice dated 12.07.2022 is
hereby quashed and set aside and all consequential proceedings i.e. the
impugned order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the
Act dated 27.04.2023 and demand notice are also quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni/16
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:21:33 IST 2026