Reassessment Notices Issued On or After April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 Are Time-Barred and Quashed

By | October 10, 2026
0 Comment
Reassessment Notices Issued On or After April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 Are Time-Barred and Quashed

Issue

Whether Section 148 reassessment notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16, and the consequential assessment orders passed thereon, are legally valid in view of the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

Facts

  • Assessment Year: The matter pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16.
  • Issuance of Reopening Notice: Notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment for AY 2015-16 was issued on or after April 1, 2021.
  • Assessment Proceedings: Consequential reassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer based on the impugned Section 148 notice.
  • Assessee’s Challenge: The assessee challenged the validity of the notice and assessment proceedings, contending that they were time-barred under the amended reassessment regime as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

Decision

  • Applicability of Supreme Court Precedent: The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
  • Notices Time-Barred: Reassessment notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 fall beyond the permissible limitation period under the substituted reassessment scheme.
  • Orders Unsustainable: The impugned assessment orders and proceedings founded on such invalid notices are legally unsustainable.
  • Relief Granted: The impugned notices and consequential assessment orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

  • Strict Limitation for AY 2015-16: Under the post-April 1, 2021 reassessment framework as interpreted in Rajeev Bansal, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are barred by time.
  • Invalid Notice Vitiates Assessment: A reassessment order founded upon a time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid Section 148 notice is a nullity in law and liable to be set aside.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Satya Narayanamurthy Kaki
v.
National Faceless Assessment Center, ITD
Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
W.P. Nos. 8274, 11241, 13324, 16130, 23385 OF 2024
W.P. Nos. 185 and 3527 of 2026
SEPTEMBER  16, 2026
M. Naga Deepak, Counsel for the Petitioner. Anup Koushik Karavadi and Y.N. Vivekananda, Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Challenge in the present batch of writ petitions is to the orders pertaining to the Assessment Order 2015-16, on various grounds. In view of the same, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners made submissions by relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC), Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT  169/476 ITR 369 (SC), as also Asstt. CIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1755. They contend that the impugned proceedings in respect of the Assessment Year 2015-15 are not sustainable in the light of the decisions cited supra. It is their contention that in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, the notices issued for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 and the action taken thereon is not valid in Law, in the light of the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Referring to Order dated 04.05.2026 in S.L.P. (Civil) No.2055 of 2025, they further submit that the said aspect is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Mr. B.Vamsi Krishna, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, on instructions submits that the matter is covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned proceedings are pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16. In the latest decision referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia observed as follows:
“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.”
5. As the Assessment Proceedings in respect of the Assessment Year 2015-16 were initiated pursuant to notices issued after 01.04.2021, the impugned orders are not sustainable.
6. In the light of the undisputed legal and factual position, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.