Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Rajeev Bansal Rulling Applies: SC Dismisses Revenue Appeal on Income Tax Reassessment Notices [Read Order]

The Court dismissed the SLP in the light of binding precedent

Rajeev Bansal Rulling Applies: SC Dismisses Revenue Appeal on Income Tax Reassessment Notices [Read Order]
X

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Bombay High Court’s judgment quashing reassessment proceedings, holding that the issue stands squarely covered by its earlier decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024). Consequently, the High Court’s decision quashing the reassessment notices issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the...


The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Bombay High Court’s judgment quashing reassessment proceedings, holding that the issue stands squarely covered by its earlier decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024). Consequently, the High Court’s decision quashing the reassessment notices issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, remains undisturbed.

The respondent-assessee, Bharat Jayantilal Soni, was one of the petitioners before the Bombay High Court in a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by the Revenue. The Bombay High Court, by a common judgment, held that the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were unsustainable.

The Court recorded that all the petitions were covered by its earlier decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and accordingly quashed and set aside the reassessment orders and notices, while keeping all other rights and contentions of the parties open. Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling, the Revenue approached the Supreme Court by filing a SLP.

The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the SLP and thereafter held that the matter is squarely covered by its judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). In view of this binding precedent, the Court disposed of the Revenue’s petitions, clarifying that the assessee shall be governed by the reasons discussed in Rajeev Bansal (supra), and the assessing officers are required to dispose of objections in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Further, the assessee, if aggrieved thereafter, would be at liberty to pursue remedies available under law, except on issues already concluded by the judgment.

Accordingly, the Bombay High Court’s order quashing the reassessment notices continues to hold the field.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs BHARAT JAYANTILAL SONI , 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 117 , SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.72888/2025 , 09 January 2026 , N Venkataraman
INCOME TAX OFFICER vs BHARAT JAYANTILAL SONI
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 117Case Number :  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.72888/2025Date of Judgement :  09 January 2026Coram :  J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHANCounsel of Appellant :  N Venkataraman
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019