Skip to main content Skip to content
FININ2MINJudgment Intelligence

UOI v. Rajeev Bansal

Case data and operative result

Repository ID: F2J-C-0235

Court / Tribunal: Supreme Court of India

Case number: Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024

Decision date: 3 October 2024

Law family: Income Tax

Outcome category: Quashed / set aside

Sections / provisions: TOLA; 147; 148; 149; Section 149(1); Section 149; Section 148; Section 2(1)(b); Section 147; Section 2(7); Section 2(7A); section 120; section 139; section 143; section 153; Section 151; section 163; Section 2(28C); section 117; Section 2; Section 2(15A); Section 2(16); Section 3(1); Section 3

Extractive case note

C.A. No. 8652/2024 C.A. No. 8642/2024 C.A. No. 8647/2024 C.A. No. 8636/2024 C.A. No. 8646/2024 C.A. No. 8639/2024 C.A. No. 8648/2024 C.A. No. 8634/2024 C.A. No. 8651/2024 C.A. No. 8653/2024 C.A. No. 8637/2024 C.A. No. 8654/2024 C.A. No. 8658/2024 C.A. No. 8661/2024 C.A. No. 8638/2024 C.A. No. 8659/2024 C.A. No. 8660/2024 C.A. No. 8662/2024 C.A. No. 8655/2024 C.A. No. 8664/2024 T.P.(C) No. 767/2023 C.A. No. 9253/2024 C.A. No. 8702/2024 C.A. No. 8667/2024 C.A. No. 8666/2024 C.A. No. 8843-8844/2024 C.A. No. 8668/2024 C.A. No. 8678/2024 C.A. No. 8680/2024 C.A. No. 8679/2024 C.A. No. 8669/2024 C.A. No. 8673/2024 C.A. No. 8682/2024 C.A. No. 10242/2024 C.A. No. 8683/2024 C.A. No. 8685/2024 C.A. No. 8687/2024 C.A. No. 10244/2024 C.A. No. 8684/2024 C.A. No. 8671/2024 C.A. No. 9822/2024 C.A. No. 8689/2024 C.A. No. 10245/2024 C.A. No. 8672/2024 C.A. No. 10246/2024 C.A. No. 8670/2024 C.A. No. 8681/2024 C.A. No. 10250/2024 C.A. No. 8676/2024 C.A. No. 8686/2024 C.A. No. 8688/2024 C.A. No. 10251/2024 C.A. No. 10252/2024 C.A. No. 8695/2024 C.A. No. 8674/2024 C.A. No. 8677/2024 C.A. No. 8713/2024 C.A. No. 8692/2024 C.A. No. 8690/2024 C.A. No. 8699/2024 C.A. No. 8691/2024 C.A. No. 8704/2024 C.A. No. 10254/2024 C.A. No. 8845/2024 C.A. No. 8846/2024 C.A. No. 8696/2024 C.A. No. 8707/2024 C.A. No. 8697/2024 C.A. No. 8847/2024 C.A. No. 8706/2024 C.A. No. 8852/2024 C.A. No. 8705/2024 C.A. No. 8848/2024 C.A. No. 8709/2024 C.A. No. 8708/2024 C.A. No. 8703/2024 C.A. No. 8849/2024 C.A. No. 8630/2024 C.A. No. 8656/2024 C.A. No. 8665/2024 T.P.(C) No. 2187-2194/2024 C.A. No. 8675/2024 C.A. No. 8700/2024 C.A. No. 8969/2024 C.A. No. 8746/2024 C.A. No. 8825/2024 C.A. No. 8698/2024 C.A. No. 8693/2024 C.A. No. 8800/2024 C.A. No. 9507/2024 C.A. No. 8710/2024 C.A. No. 8799/2024 C.A. No. 10257/2024 C.A. No. 8694/2024 C.A. No. 8716/2024 C.A. No. 8719/2024

Operative-result extract

PART G 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021; g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside; 115. The judgments of the High Courts rendered in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 165 Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Surat, 166 J M Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 167 Siemens Financial

Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-0235)

The complete packaged judgment text and PDF are the controlling records. The case note is extractive and should not be treated as a substitute for the operative order or later-history verification.

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Supreme CourtQuashed Or Set AsideAuthenticated primaryLater-history check open
Source status: Official issuing-authority judgment copy packaged. Open full judgment PDF. Verify against the issuing court/tribunal record before legal reliance.

Case in 2 minutes

The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalSupreme Court of India
Case numberCivil Appeal No 8629 of 2024
Decision date3 October 2024
Assessment yearNot stated in captured judgment metadata
Law familyIncome Tax
OutcomeQuashed Or Set Aside

Sections / provisions: TOLA; 147; 148; 149

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

  • See the source-driven case record below.
SOURCE-DRIVEN CASE RECORD - condensed from the packaged judgment copy

Material facts and background

Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section and section 148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means,— (i) any information flagged in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time; (ii) any final objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where,— (i) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the...

Section 148A 20 requires the assessing officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148. Section 148A requires the assessing officer to: (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of the specified authority; (b) provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving a show cause notice with the prior approval of the specified authority;

Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151.] Section 148A, Income Tax Act [It reads: “Section 148A. Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148.

The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a Ct case to issue a notice under section...

PART A (c) consider the reply furnished by the assessee in response to the show cause notice; and (d) decide on the basis of available material, including the reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under Section 148 by passing an order. (iii)

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

PART A of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided Section 148 notice has been issued on or after 1-4-2021.” However, the Court observed that the Revenue issued the reassessment notices under a “bona fide belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced.” This Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 in order to balance the interests of the Revenue and the assesses and directed that the reassessment notices issued under the old regime shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A(b) of the new regime. This Court issued the following directions: “28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WT No. 524 of 2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:

19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the reassessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.” Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for...

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; g. Section 2 of TOLA defines “specified Act” to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 Page 52 of 112

PART C of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra). 20. Mr Percy Pardiwalla, Mr V Sridharan, Mr Tushar Hemani, Mr Saurabh Soparkar, and Mr K Shivram, learned senior counsel, Mr Manish Shah, Mr Darshan Patel, Mr Suhrith Parthasarthy, Mr Dharan Gandhi, and Mr Ved Jain, learned counsel, made the following submissions on behalf of the respondents: a. TOLA applies only when the period of limitation expires between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021. Finance Act 2021 was enacted after TOLA. Consequently, TOLA only held the field till the new regime came into effect from 1 April 2021. The Revenue had to issue Section 148 notices in terms of the new regime without recourse to the extended timelines under TOLA; b. TOLA did not amend the erstwhile Section 149 but merely extended the specified time limits. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) only refers to the period of limitation under the erstwhile Section...

The directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) were not intended to apply to assesses who did not challenge the reassessment notices before the High Courts or this Court. Therefore, reassessment proceedings could not have been initiated for such assesses.

Operative decision and relief

PART G Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 168 Geeta Agarwal v. ITO,169 Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd v. PCIT, 170 Twylight Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. ITO,171 Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO, 172 and other judgments of the High Courts which relied on these judgments, are set aside to the extent of the observations made in this judgment. 116. The appeals filed by the Revenue are accordingly allowed. The appeals filed by the assesses will be governed by reasons discussed in this judgment. 117. The transfer petitions are disposed of. 118. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

  • Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
  • In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
  • Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
  • Vellore Institute of Technology v. CBDT
  • Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd v. ACIT
  • Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
  • Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT
  • Sudesh Taneja v. ITO
  • Manoj Jain v. Union of India
  • Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana
  • Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab
  • Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

  • Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
  • Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
  • For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Do not over-read this case

  • The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
  • Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
  • Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence

Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.

Compare this caseBrowse by section

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority levelSupreme Court
Reliance effectNationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development.
Source integrityAuthenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged.
Subsequent historySubsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Finin2min statusLater-history check open

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

  • Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
  • The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: TOLA, 147, 148, 149.
  • Your matter is at a comparable appeal/revision stage.
  • Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Supreme Court considered: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior…

Weaker / distinguishable when

  • A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
  • The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
  • Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
  • The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in UOI?

The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.

Which facts mattered most to the result?

Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section and section 148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means,— (i) any information flagged in the case of the assessee for…

What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?

PART G Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 168 Geeta Agarwal v.

What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?

The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?

The case engages TOLA, 147, 148, 149. The relevant statutory version for Not stated in captured judgment metadata should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.

When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?

The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.

Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?

Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged.

Section / provision impact

  • TOLA — TOLA is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
  • 147 — 147 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
  • 148 — 148 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
  • 149 — 149 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.

How the decision changes your analysis

1. Frame the issue

Before using this authority, frame the issue under TOLA, 147, 148, 149 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.

2. This judgment

The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

3. Current use

Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.

Case network: similar and different outcomes

Authorities appearing in this judgment: Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer; In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal; Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India; Vellore Institute of Technology v. CBDT; Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd v. ACIT; Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository

Related cases with a different result

Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.

Working-paper citation

UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 & connected matters, Supreme Court, decided 2024-10-03

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF

Packaged source classOfficial primary copy, digitally signed and authenticated
Pages112
SHA-256276eb735acee85c24f23ab28eda7debf8dd36ef1a11462afcbf0096ca50bb3e1
Original source URLOfficial primary packaged locally; public page does not rely on third-party source links.
Source authenticationOfficial primary - valid embedded issuing-authority digital signature

Related Finin2min guidance

Sections and statute

The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Section 149Section 148Section 2Section 147Section 120Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 151Section 163Section 117Section 3

Read the statutory citations in the full judgment →

Educational and professional reference only — not financial, tax or legal advice. Verify the current official position from the primary source before relying on any figure, rate, provision or deadline.