Reopening notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period under TOLA and Ashish Agarwal directives is invalid.

By | August 10, 2026
0 Comment

Reopening notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period under TOLA and Ashish Agarwal directives is invalid.

Reopening notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period under TOLA and Ashish Agarwal directives is invalid.

Issue

Whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 20.08.2022 for Assessment Year 2014–15 is time-barred and invalid for being issued beyond the surviving limitation period calculated pursuant to TOLA read with the directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal.

Facts

  • Initial Reopening Notice: The Assessing Officer initially issued a notice dated 21.05.2021 under Section 148 for AY 2014–15 during the extended timeline permitted under TOLA.
  • Compliance with Ashish Agarwal: Following the Supreme Court judgment in Ashish Agarwal, the Assessing Officer provided the relevant material/information to the assessee on 25.05.2022.
  • Response Timeline: Factoring in the 14-day statutory response window allowed to the assessee, the due date for submitting a reply was 08.06.2022. The assessee submitted their reply on 17.06.2022.
  • Issuance of Final Notice & Order: The Assessing Officer subsequently passed the order under Section 148A(d) and issued the fresh Section 148 notice on 20.08.2022.
  • Limitation Period Calculation: Computing the surviving limitation period available to the Revenue from the initial timeline under TOLA (up to 30.06.2021), the outer limit for issuing the fresh Section 148 notice expired on 28.07.2022.

Decision

  • Expiry of Surviving Time: The impugned notice under Section 148 and the accompanying order under Section 148A(d) dated 20.08.2022 were issued beyond the permissible surviving limitation period of 28.07.2022.
  • Invalidation of Proceedings: Since the notice was issued after the expiration of the extended statutory deadline, the Section 148 notice and all consequent reopening proceedings are void and invalid in law.
  • Final Ruling: The issue was decided in favor of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

  • Strict Computation of Surviving Limitation: Under the Ashish Agarwal framework read with TOLA, the Revenue must issue fresh Section 148 notices strictly within the surviving period remaining from the original TOLA extension window.
  • Jurisdictional Bar on Delayed Notices: A reassessment notice issued even a few days after the expiry of the surviving limitation date loses statutory validity, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding null and void.
  • Effect of Procedural Extension: The time granted to the assessee to respond to the show-cause notice halts the limitation period only for that specified duration; it does not grant the Revenue an indefinite extension to pass Section 148A(d) orders and issue fresh notices.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Aneri Dipakkumar Patel
v.
Income-tax Officer
A.S. Supehia and Ms. VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, JJ.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22748 of 2022
JULY  21, 2026
Ms. Nupur D. Shah for the Petitioner. Aaditya D. Bhatt for the Respondent.
ORDER
A.S. Supehia, J. – This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.08.2022, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 20.08.2022 and consequential reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the notice would be invalid and time barred.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent – Assessing Officer issued notice dated 21.05.2021 under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 during the extended time period as per Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 [(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (for short “TOLA”).
3. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal 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.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 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 the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra).
5. This Court in the case of Dhanra j Govindram Kella v. ITO  (Gujarat) (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 30thJune, 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 and 20142015 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 20172018 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. Assessment Year Date of notice under section 148 under TOLA No of days of surviving time available till 30.06.2021 Date of providing information under section 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 24.05.2022

 

SCA NO. Due date of filing reply Date of reply Date of order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 Last date for issuance of notice under section 148 as per surviving time
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 section beyond time’ Hon’ble Rajeev that impugned notice under148 of the Act is issued the period of ‘surviving as per the direction of Apex Court in case of 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 undersection 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.”
6. In the facts of the case, the respondent Assessing Officer has provided information pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) on 25.05.2022 and therefore, considering 14 days’ time to file reply by the assessee, the due date would be 08.06.2022. The petitioner filed reply on 17.06.2022. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 20.08.2022. 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 the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal (supra), would be 28.07.2022 as original notice under Section 148 [now 148A(b)] was issued on 21.05.2021. The table showing the relevant dates of notice and orders in the case of petitioner is as under.
Sr. No. Particulars
1 Name of petitioner Aneri Dipakkumar Patel
2 Assessment Year 2014-15
3. 1st Notice under section 148 of the Act 21.05.2021
4. Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act 25.05.2022
5. Days between 148 original notices issued to 30.06.2021 41 Days
6. Reply filed on 17.06.2022
7. Time allowed to pass 148A(d) order (As per Apex Court Judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), i.e. No of Days from Reply Filed)
28.07.2022
(June — 13 Days)
(July — 28 Days)
8. Max Time within which notice under section 148 should be issued 28.07.2022
9. Date of order under section 148A(d) of the Act 20.08.2022
10. Issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act 20.08.2022

 

7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Aaditya Bhatt has verified the above facts and could not controvert the same.
8-9. In view of above, the impugned order dated 20.08.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 20.08.2022 and consequent reopening proceedings would be invalid as the said notice is issued after 28.07.2022 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 Nos.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 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, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 20.08.2022 and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 20.08.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside and all consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside.