SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
Jayantibhai Karamshibhai Maniya – Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(9), Bhavnagar – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 16615 of 2025, R/Special Civil Application No. 16817 of 2025, R/Special Civil Application No. 16822 of 2025, R/Special Civil Application No. 16866 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tushar Hemani, Senior Counsel With Ms Vaibhavi K Parikh
For the Respondent: Maunil G Yajnik, Senior Standing Counsel

Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was quashed for being time-barred, as it fell outside the statutory limitation period based on the relevant assessment year and provisions of Sections 149 and 153A.

Headnote:(A) Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 148 - Limitation for reopening assessment - Court quashed notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 as time-barred, holding that the provisions of Section 149 and 153A/153C are applicable in conjunction post-search initiated on 09.05.2024 - Court reiterated that the relevant assessment year fell beyond the ten-year outer limit specified under the act. (Paras 7.3 and 8)

(B) Limitation - For the reopening of assessment under Section 148, the notice must be issued within the timeline specified in Section 149 and the implications of the search provisions under Sections 153A and 153C have to be considered. (Paras 7.1 and 7.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner engaged in the diamond business filed a return declaring an income of Rs.19,85,220/- for AY 2015-16, but a notice was issued for reopening assessment in 2025 based on a search of a third party conducted in 2024.

Findings of Court:
The impugned notice is quashed as it was issued beyond the applicable limitation period.

Issues: The core issue was whether the reopening notice was barred by limitation under the Income-tax Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the assessment year for which the notice was issued was not within the permissible time frame, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the statutory provisions regarding the limitation period.

Result: Notice under Section 148 quashed; petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. court's analysis of the legal issues. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1 RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsels Mr.Maunil Yajnik, Mr.Varun Patel and Mr.Karan Sanghani waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent – Department. Since a pure question of law is raised in the writ petitions, the same were heard extensively and are finally decided today by this present judgment and order.

2 Special Civil Application No.16615 of 2025 is taken up as the lead matter. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by the respondent – Department seeking to reopen the income-tax assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

3 The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition are as under:

3.1 The petitioner was engaged in the business of job work of diamonds during the year under consideration. The petitioner filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.19,85,220/-.

3.2 The respondent issued a notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Act for the year under consideration stating therein that a search was initiated under Section 132 of the Act on 09.05.2024 in the case of the person in respect of whom the petitioner is assessable under the Act. Further, it was stated that the respondent is satisfied, with the approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that the books of account or documents seized or requisitioned under or A of the Act in the case of Sushil Kumar Keval Kishan Goyal pertain to the petitioner or the person in respect of whom the petitioner is assessable under the Act, and hence, the notice dated 31.03.2025 has been issued under of the Act after obtaining prior approval of Chief Commisioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1.

3.3 The petitioner, vide letters dated 07.04.2025 and 01.05.2025, raised various legal objections against the action of reopening the case of the petitioner for the year under consideration.

3.4 The petitioner filed the return of income on 20.05.2025 in response to the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 19,85,220/-. The petitioner, vide letter dated 20.05.2025, reiterated the earlier objections raised against the reopening of assessment and requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings.

3.5 The respondent issued a notice dated 20.06.2025 under Section 143 (2) of the Act. The petitioner, vide letters dated 23.06.2025 and 10.07.2025, requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings in view of the objections raised by the petitioner vide letters dated 07.04.2025, 01.05.2025 and 20.05.205. The respondent, vide letter dated 29.08.2025, disposed of the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of assessment.

4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned notice is barred by limitation and runs contrary to the provisions of Section 149 read with Section 153A(1)(b) read with Explanation 1 to Section 153A of the Act. Mr. Tushar Hemani, learned Senior Advocate, has advanced the following submissions :

4.1 Relying upon Section 149 of the Act, it is contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, relying upon Sections 153A and 153C of the Act, he would submit that notices under Sections 153A / 153C of the Act can be issued for a period of “ten assessment years” immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is carried out and for the “relevant assessment years”, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

4.2 It is submitted that the “relevant assessment year” means an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top