Nimit Builders Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(a) issue writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, quashing notice dated 18.05.2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. (b) issue a writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 under section 148A(d) of the Act;

(c) issue writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto for assessment year 2015-16;

(d) Issue writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India restraining the Respondents from continuing with the assessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, for assessment year 2015-16 and all actions/ proceedings consequential thereto; (e) issue writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, quashing intimation dated 11.05.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4...”

2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue in question is covered by the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC) as followed by this Court in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs DCIT W.P.(C) 2557/2023 and Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. [2025 (5) TMI 1967].

3. He has placed before us an order dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 6845/2023 Viable Management Consultants Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. decided on 23.07.2025 whereby this Court considering an identical issue with regard to Assessment Year 2015- 16 has in Paragraph 2 onwards, stated as under: “2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Notice dated 26.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [„the Act‟] and the impugned Order dated 25.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are bad in law as the same are beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act as amended by The Finance Act, 2021 which came into effect on 01.04.2021. Concedingly, the above impugned Notice and impugned Order having been passed post 01.04.2021, the same need to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been decided by this Court and also by the High Courts at Bombay and of Rajasthan and Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue Department against the order of High Court at Bombay has been dismissed. He has also drawn our attention to the latest order passed by this Court in the case of Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. [2025 (5) TMI 1967] wherein this Court has in paragraph 11 onwards stated as under:-

Supreme Court was drawn to the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and noting the same, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

3. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents, do not contest the applicability of the judgement in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024 INSC 754] as followed by the Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

4. If that be so, the impugned Notice dated 26.05.2022 and impugned Order dated 25.07.2022 are set aside and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are also set aside.