IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20749 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI =================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==================================================

SHRUTI PIYUSHBHAI SHAH Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ==================================================

Appearance:

MR DHINAL A SHAH(12077) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 03/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) dated 25.08.2022 (only intimation was issued and notice was not served) along with order under Section 148A(d) dated 17.08.2022 on the ground that the notice would be invalid and time barred.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Assessing Officer issued notice dated 30.06.2021 under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 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”).

4. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 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.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 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 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra).

6. This Court in case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward(2), Surendranagar (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 30^th June, 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 2014-2015 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 (supr