2-WP-5849-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2026 Surjit Bhojsingh Ailsinghani .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Vasudev Ginde, with Adv. Kumar Kale, for the Petitioner. Adv. Arjun Gupta, for the Respondent/Revenue. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 P. C. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The present Writ Petition challenges the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 passed by Respondent No.1 disposing of the objections whereby the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the IT Act”) has been revived pursuant to the Order dated 6th October 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai & SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2026:BHC-AS:36258-DB 2-WP-5849-2026.doc Ors vs. Surjit Bhojsingh Ailsinghani [Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 28634/2025]. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as under: i. The Petitioner is an Individual who is regularly assessed to tax. For the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, the Petitioner filed his Return of Income on 17th October 2016, declaring a total income of Rs.2,58,35,670/-. This Return of Income was picked up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, and an Assessment Order was passed on 22nd December 2018, determining his total income of Rs.3,51,66,670/-. The Petitioner has preferred an appeal against this order, which is stated to be pending. ii. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 29th June 2021 under the pre-existing Section 148 of the IT Act, reopening the Petitioner’s assessment for A.Y. 2016-17. iii. While the assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act initiated by virtue of the aforesaid notice were pending, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India V/s Ashish SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc Agarwal [(2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)] directed that all notices under Section 148 of the IT Act issued after 31st March 2021 under the pre-existing regime be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act and further directed the Revenue Officers to furnish the relevant material to the assessees and follow the procedure as per Section 148A of the IT Act. iv. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 20th May 2022 to the Petitioner asking the Petitioner to submit his reply within two weeks. The Petitioner furnished his detailed reply dated 23rd May 2022 on 3rd June 2022, requesting Respondent No.1 not to issue any notice under Section 148. Rejecting the Petitioner’s submissions, Respondent No.1 passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act on 29th July 2022, after obtaining prior approval under Section 151(i) of the IT Act of Respondent No.2, i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai. A notice dated 29th July 2022 was also issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the IT Act. Page 3 of 11 SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc v. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 17167 of 2023 filed before this Court. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a consolidated Order dated 17th October 2023 along with other Writ Petitions, wherein, following the judgment of this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [Writ Petition No. 4888 of 2022, dated 25th August 2023], this Court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act and all consequential notices/demand, on the ground that sanction given under Section 151(i) of the IT Act for issuance of the said notice under Section 148 was invalid because the sanction should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) of the IT Act since the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 had already expired. In this case, this Court held that the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short “TOLA”) were not applicable for the grant of sanction under Section 151 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2016-17. Page 4 of 11 SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc vi. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed a Special Leave Petition [SLP (C) No. 28634/2025] against this Court’s aforesaid Order dated 17th October 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Order dated 6th October 2025, directed Respondent No.1 to dispose of the objections in terms of law laid down by it in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 & Ors.]. vii. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 rejecting the Petitioner’s objections, and revived the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act. viii. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Respondent No.1. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that Respondent No.1 has misread the judgment in Union of India V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra) inasmuch as he did not appreciate that the specified authority referred to under Section 151(i) could have granted sanction for A.Y. 2016-17 only up to 30th June 2021, even after considering SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc the extension granted by TOLA. In the Petitioner’s case, however, the order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act was passed on 29th July 2022, and also the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 29th July 2022. Therefore, a sanction under Section 151(ii) of the IT Act was necessary. However, in the Petitioner’s case, a sanction was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(i) of the IT Act, which is not valid. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Memon Chamber of Commerce vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, 2(1), Mumbai and Ors [Writ Petition (L) No. 36619 OF 2025 decided on 9th December 2025], wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the Assessee following this Court’s judgment in Ramesh Bachulal Mehta V/s. Income Tax Officer [(2025) 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bombay)]. 5. The Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Respondent No.1 erred in holding that the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated 29th July 2022 was issued within the surviving time of 73 days (period from 19th April 2021 to 30th June 2021) from 10th June 2022 as discussed in paragraph 111 of the judgment in Union of India V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra), which, according to Respondent No. 1, expired on 31st August 2022. Without going into the legality of the Respondent No.1’s stand SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc justifying sanction obtained under Section 151(i) on this basis, the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for the sake of argument, even if one assumes that the surviving time is applicable for the purpose of grant of sanction under Section 151, yet Respondent No.1 erred in computing the said period inasmuch as Respondent No.1 wrongly took the date of issuance of notice under Section 148 [which is deemed to be the notice under Section 148A(b) as per Union of India V/s Ashish Agarwal (supra)] as 19th April 2021 instead of the correct date of 29th June 2021, and therefore, the said period would stand reduced to 2 days instead of 73 days. Thus, even if one were to adopt the reasoning of Respondent No.1, then the surviving period would expire on 5th June 2022, (i.e., 2 days after the date on which the Petitioner filed reply on 3rd June 2022), and not on 31st August 2022 as claimed by Respondent No.1. in the impugned order. Thus, even by the Respondent No.1’s own stand, the notice under Section 148 dated 29th July 2022 was issued beyond three years after obtaining sanction under Section 151(i), which is invalid. 6. Mr. Arjun Gupta, learned Counsel for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Page 7 of 11 SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc 8. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completion on 31st March 2020. We, therefore, find that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Bachulal Mehta (supra), wherein it was held thus: “9. In the present case the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completion on 31st March 2020. Since the expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction till 30th June 2021. On perusal of the order, dated 13.07.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed after the expiry of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17, as per the substituted provisions of re- assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case the approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in paragraph 78 of it's order in the context of Assessment Year 2017-18, wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under Section 151(i) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc that the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (here AY 2016-17) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas the Respondent No.1, despite passing the order on 13.07.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17, has obtained approval of Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii). 11. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) vitiates the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 12. We are clearly of the view that the present matter stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). We accordingly hold that the order dated 13.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 dated 15.07.2022 are bad in law for being violative of the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence they are required to be quashed and set aside.” 9. We, therefore, find that the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 passed by Respondent No.1 is, in fact, contrary to what the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 78 of its order in Union of India V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra). We thus note that even if the order in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited (supra) stands set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra) on the ground of applicability of the provisions of TOLA to Section 151, yet the sanction under Section 151(i) of the IT Act obtained by Respondent No.1 in the Petitioner’s case for the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 is still invalid as it was beyond 30th June 2021. Therefore, we are of the clear SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc view that on the facts of the Petitioner’s case, the judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) is in favour of the Petitioner on the issue of sanction under Section 151. Respondent No.1, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to revive the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act, which he sought to do by virtue of the impugned order dated 13th January 2026. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 passed by Respondent No.1 whereby he revived the proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act and commenced assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act, and allow this Writ Petition in terms of Prayer Clause (a), which reads thus: “(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside impugned order disposing objections dated 13.01.2026 (“Exhibit – N”).” 11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Page 10 of 11 SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil 2-WP-5849-2026.doc 12. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Darshan Patil Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 18:41:21