Escaped Assessment Notices Struck Down if for AY 2015-16, Else Remanded for Redetermination

By | July 18, 2026
0 Comment

Escaped Assessment Notices Struck Down if for AY 2015-16, Else Remanded for Redetermination

Escaped Assessment Notices Struck Down if for AY 2015-16, Else Remanded for Redetermination

Issue

Whether the impugned reassessment notices are liable to be struck down outrightly under the revenue’s concession if they pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, or whether the matters should be remanded back to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination under the principles established in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh if they pertain to other years.

Facts

  • The appeals were originally part of a larger batch of income-escaping assessment cases decided by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh [2026].

  • These specific cases were segregated from the main batch because they were believed to specifically pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16.

  • Under a prior landmark ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024], the revenue had recorded a concession in paragraph 19(f) that effectively invalidates certain notices issued for Assessment Year 2015-16.

  • The exact assessment year of these segregated cases required formal factual verification to determine which legal precedent applies.

Decision

  • Held that if these instant cases are factually verified as pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, the impugned reassessment notices must be struck down outrightly in terms of the revenue’s concession in Rajeev Bansal.

  • Held that if the cases actually pertain to any assessment year other than 2015-16, the assessees are fully entitled to raise all defenses and contentions permitted by the Supreme Court in Tej Partap Singh.

  • Consequently, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the matters were officially remanded back to the respective jurisdictional High Courts for factual redetermination of the assessment years and issues.

Key Takeaways

  • Absolute Revenue Concession: Reassessment notices for Assessment Year 2015-16 carry a distinct legal vulnerability based on the concession recorded in Rajeev Bansal (SC), making their factual verification a priority.

  • Remand for Factual Accuracy: When the apex court segregates matters based on specific timeline traits, the jurisdictional High Courts must re-examine the foundational facts before applying broader faceless assessment precedents.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Income-tax Officer
v.
Sai Kumar Mateti*
Surya Kant, CJI
and Joymalya Bagchi, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6922 OF 2026†
MAY  4, 2026
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh  (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters.
4. The instant cases were segregated through the above-mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC)/2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693.
5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.
6. However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly.
7. Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then all the issues shall be resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Tej Partap Singh (supra).
8. Pending application(s), if any, including application(s) for substitution and impleadment/intervention stand closed.