- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103263 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN MR ANIL DATTOPANT KULKARNI S/O DATTOPANT BHAURAO KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT 1514, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM 590001 ALSO AT FLAT NO. 601, SKY VILLA GRANDE BELLA VISTA, NEAR AYYAPPA MANDIR NANAWADI, BELGAUM RECORDS MLI BELAGAVI 590009 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE BHAVANA B., SANDEEPANI A. NEGLUR AND PREETHAM JUDE CORREA., ADVOCATES) AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 BELGAUM F.K.COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL DR. AMBEDKAR RAOD, BELAGAVI 590001 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE -1 BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 6TH BLOCK, KORAGMANGALA BENGALURU 560095 3. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI 110003 4. THE UNION OF INDIA R/BY HEREIN BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001 …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH AND SMT. ROOPA AVAVEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 29.03.2024 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2023-24/1063636161(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148A(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 (ANNEXURE -A), AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Quash the impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 bearing DIN and Notice no. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2023- 24/1063636161(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income-Tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18 (Annexure -A), ii. Quash The Impugned Order Dated 15.04.2024 bearing Din and Notice ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-25/1064110867(1) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 148A(d) Of The Income- Tax Act, for Assessment Year 2017-18 (Annexure-B-1) iii. Quash the impugned notice dated 15.04.2024 bearing Din and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2024- 25/1064111010(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (Annexure -B-2), iv. Quash the impugned notice dated 19.03.2021 Bearing Din and notice no. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031600500(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (Annexure-F) v. Consequently, quash all proceedings arising out of the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 19.03.2021 bearing din and notice no. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1031600500(1) issued by the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (Annexure-F). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 2. The issue in the present matter is as regards the limitation period for issuance of notices by the Income- tax department, which has been extensively dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its Judgment in Union of India -v- Rajeev Bansal1, more particularly para 49, 53 and 60 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the 1 (2024) 167 taxmann.com, 70 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs. 60. The above principles can be applied as follows to the factual situation in the present appeals: (i) The Finance Act 2021 substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act with effect from 1 April 2021; (ii) Sections 147 to 151 of the old law ceased to operate from 1 April 2021; (iii) After 1 April 2021, any reference to the Income Tax Act means the Income Tax Act as amended by the Finance Act 2021; (iv) The time limits prescribed for issuing reassessment notices under Section 149 operate retrospectively for three years for all situations and six years in case the escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than Rupees fifty lakhs. 3. 3. By referring to the relevant paras in Rajeev Bansal's case extracted supra, the said judgment has been applied by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sheetal International (P) Ltd -v- Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central-22, more particularly para 1 to 6 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "1. Issue notice. 22 (2024), 168 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 01.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18 as well as the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 4. The petitioner contends that the said notice was issued beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 675/300 Taxman 516/466 ITR 758 (Delhi): Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 6. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in a recent decision of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) (SC) has observed as under: "46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 49. first to Section of prescribed The proviso 149(1)(b) requires the determination whether the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.05.2024 as well as the notice issued under Section 148 in respect of the AY 2017-18 are set aside. 8. Pending applications also stand disposed of." 4. The applicability of the decision in Rajeev Bansal's case has now been held to be applicable to even notices under section 148 for assessment year 2017- 2018. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 bearing DIN and Notice no. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN) /2023-24/ 1063636161(1) issued by respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12293 WP No. 103263 of 2024 No.1 at Annexure-A for the assessment year 2017-18; Order Dated 15.04.2024 bearing Din and Notice ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024- 25/1064110867(1) passed by Respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2017-18 at Annexure-B1; and Notice dated 15.04.2024 bearing Din and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2024- 25/1064111010(1) issued by respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2017-18 at Annexure- B2, are quashed. iii. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the Notice at Annexure-F for the assessment year 2018-19. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN/- List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1