Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Yashashvi Securities Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 May, 2026
07-05-2026
ct no. 10
Sl. 6
RP WPA 5424 of 2026
Yashashvi Securities Private Limited
-Versus-
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle
2(1) and Ors.
Mr. Abhratosh Mazumdar, Sr.Adv,
Mr. Sanjay Bhaumik,
Mr. Soumya Kejriwal,
Ms. Ananya Rath,
Mr. Navin Mittal,
Mr. Debarghya Banerjee
...for the petitioners
Ms. Sanjukta Gupta,
Ms. Sukanya Dutta
...for the respondent.
1. Heard the parties through their respective learned
Counsels.
2. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged
inter alia, the notice dated 4th December, 2024 issued
under Section 148 for the assessment year 2025-26.
3. Apropo the facts of the case, Learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,
being an assessee, filed the original return for the
assessment year 2015-16 under Section 139(1) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
Said Act) on 30th September, 2015 declaring the “Nil”
income. Thereafter, scrutiny proceedings have been
initiated and an order under Section 143(3) of the Said
Act has been passed accordingly. In the meantime, on
June 15, 2023 a search and seizure operation under
Section 132 of the said Act has been conducted at the
premises of one Shyam Steel Udyog Private Limited
2
along with other associated companies including the
office premises of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly a notice dated 4th December, 2024
has been issued under Section 148 of the said Act for
the assessment year 2015-16 by the respondent income
tax authorities.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a return of
income on 29th March, 2025 in response to the notice
dated 4th December, 2024 issued under Section 148 of
the said Act under protest.
6. Subsequently, the notices under Section 143(2)
and 142(1) have also been issued by the income tax
authorities accordingly.
7. The petitioner filed an objection to the notice
dated 1st January, 2026 issued under Section 142(1) of
the Said Act and the objection has been rejected by the
income tax authorities.
8. Thereafter, the respondent income tax authorities
issued show cause notice dated 27.2.2026 which is the
subject matter of challenge in the instant case.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the impugned show-cause
notice dated 27th February, 2026 has been issued in
this regard of the mandate of the first proviso to Section
149(1) of the Said Act.
10. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
3
vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167
taxmann.com 70(SC) and draws the attention of this
Court to Paragraphs 19, 46 and 49. The same one
reproduced below:
19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India, made the following submissions on half of the
Revenue:
a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to
provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the
Revenue during the time of COVID 19. TOLA seeks to relax
actions and proceedings that could not be completed or
complied with within the original time limits specified under the
Income-tax Act;
b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits
to the assesses: (1) the four-year time limit for all situations has
been reduced to three years; (II) the first proviso to Section 143
ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years
cannot be undertaken beyond six years, and (in) the monetary
threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re assessment
for previous assessment years;
c. The relaxations provided under section 3(1) of TOLA apply
“notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.”
Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a
notice under section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income-
tax Act.
d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely
provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of
actions following the procedure laid down under the new
regime;
e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-
assessment 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 Income-tax 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:
Assessme Within 3 Expiry of Limitation Within six Expiry of
nt Year Years read with TOLA for (2) Years 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
42015-2016 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
applicableThe 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:
g. Section 2 of TOLA defines “specified Act” to mean and
include the Income-tax Act. The new regime, which came
into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income-tax
Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income
Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; andh. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices
issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30
June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section
148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue Issued notices under
section 148 of the new regime between July and August
2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued
under the new regime on the ground that they were
issued beyond. the time limit specified under the Income-
tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the
judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish
Agarwal (supra).
46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down
for analysis as follows: (D no notice under Section 148 of
the new regime can be issued at any time for an
assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021: (ii)
if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be
issued because of the “time limits specified under the
provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice
could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for
assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time
limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under
section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.
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 2021-2022 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 2012-2013, the ten year period
would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six
year period expired on 31 March 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 2012-2013 if the escaped
assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The
5proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section
149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.
11. It is further submitted that the first proviso to
Section 149 (1)(b) of the Said Act, as substituted by the
Finance Act, 2021 clearly envisages that, for a relevant
assessment year prior to 1st April, 2021, no notice
under Section 148 of the said Act could be issued if
such notice has already become barred by limitation
under Section 149(1) (b) as it stood immediately before
the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. It is
contended that the purported proceedings are therefore
arbitrary, erroneous, illegal, invalid, non-est, without
jurisdiction and barred by limitation.
12. Learned Counsel further relies upon the judgment
pronounced by the Apex Court in the Case of Income
Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Chandigarh & Ors vs. Tej
Partap Singh dated 08.04.2025 to demonstrate that
the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year
2015-16 are time barred and have been ordered to be
de-tagged from the matters pertaining to different
assessment years. The relevant portion of the Apex
Court is reproduced below:
“1. At the outset, it is pointed out by Mr. N
Venkataraman, the learned Additional Solicitor General
of India, that there are some matters (list enclosed),
which pertain to the assessment year 2015-2016 and,
thus, reassessment in such matters is time-barred. He
seeks and is granted two weeks’ time to verify the stand
taken on behalf of the assessee.
2. The matters are, accordingly, ordered to be de-tagged
and to be listed on 04.05.2026.
6
3. If there are other matters of assessment year 2015-
2016, learned counsel for the assessee may furnish
details of such cases to learned ASG for verification.”
13. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
income tax authorities with regard to limitation submits
that under Section 149(1)(b) notices under Section 148
may be issued up to ten years from the end of the
relevant assessment year, where the alleged escapement
of income amounts to Rs. 50 lakh or more and is
represented in the form of an asset, expenditure, or
entry in the books of account, including deposits in
bank accounts. It is further submitted that in the
present case the assessment year 2015-16 falls within
the outer limit of 31st March 2025 and since the notice
under Section 148 has been issued on 04.12.2024, the
same is well within the statutory period.
14. It is further submitted by learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent income tax authorities
that reliance is placed on Section 152(3) of the said Act,
to demonstrate that the present case falls in the
01.09.2024 regime and by virtue of the said provision
inserted by the Finance Act, 2024 the search pertains to
the period between 01.04.21 and 31.08.2024. It is
submitted that Section 143 provides that that Sections
147 to 151 of the said Act shall apply as they stood
immediately before the commencement of the Finance
Act, 2024. Consequently, notwithstanding the date of
issuance of notice the (04.12.2026) the applicable
regime remains the earlier reassessment framework,
7
and the proceedings have been initiated strictly in
accordance with the statutory mandate.
15. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
authorities seeks extension of time to comply with the
terms of the order dated 31.03.2026 by filing a report in
response to the allegations made in the writ petition.
16. Such prayer is allowed. The respondent
authorities are directed to file an affidavit in opposition
to the main writ petition within a period of 4 weeks.
Reply if any, within a further period of 2 weeks.
17. Matter to appear on 23.06.2026. In the meantime
the respondent authorities are restrained from taking
any coercive steps till 30.06.2026.
(Smita Das De, J.)
