The court affirmed that reassessment notices issued beyond prescribed limitation are invalid, emphasizing required prior approval must follow the hierarchy outlined in the Income Tax Act post-amendment, ensuring taxpayer protection.

ORDER

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the orders of CIT (A) 57, Mumbai-

i) vide order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074571063(1), dated 17.03.2025 passed against the assessment order of Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-3(2)(1), Mumbai u/s. 147 r.w.s.144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 28.07.2023 for AY 2015-16.

ii) vide order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074573456(1), dated 17.03.2025 passed against the assessment order of Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-3(2)(1), Mumbai u/s. 147 r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act, dated 28.07.2023 for AY 2016-17.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

ITA No. 3674/MUM/2025

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the impugned notice which was deemed to have been issued under Section 148 A, would be governed by TOLA, 2020 and the limitation period from 01.04.2021 would get extended up to 30.06.2021 since because the time limit for issuing notice under un-amended Section 149 which was falling from 20th March 2020 till 31st March 2021 was extended by Section 3 of TOLA read with Notification No. 20/2021 dated 31st March, 2021, and Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27th April, 2021, until 30th June, 2021.

2. Whether a plain and literal construction of Section 3(1) of the TOLA permits that in all cases where "such action' could not be completed/complied with within the limitation period provided the Specified Act, Such action" could be completed/complied with during the extended period granted under Section 3(1) of TOLA in accordance with the law as it stood prior to 31.03.2021.

3. Whether a plain and literal construction of Section 3(1) of the TOLA it would follow that in all cases in which notices u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued between 01.01.2021 and 30.06.2021 as a result of the extension/relaxation granted under the TOLA, it would be Sections 147 , 148, 149 and 151 as they stood prior to their amendment by way of Finance Act, 2021 that would govern such notices.

4. Whether such action u/s. 3 (1) of TOLA included (a) the power to assess or reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151 of the Act.

5. Whether section 3(1) of TOLA creates a legal fiction by virtue of which the revenue is entitled to invoke section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it existed prior to 31.03.2021 during the extended period between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021.

6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal that all the notices issued by Revenue between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 are deemed notices issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act meaning thereby that these are valid notices and not barred by limitation.

7. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the fact that the case of Ashish Agrawal-the lead case is also of A Y 2015-16 and Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of TOLA as well as new provisions of Law has given a one-time relief to the Revenue to proceed with the proceedings under Article 142 of the Constitution and did not hold A Y 2015-16 as barred by limitation.

8. Whether t