ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Mr. Parimalsinh Parmar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for respondent No.1. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 3.03.2021 (At Annexure A to this petition], the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 along with consequential demand notice dated 29.03.2022 [At Annexure B (Colly) to this petition] as well as the impugned Rectification order dated 04.07.2024 along with consequential demand notice dated 09.07.2024 [at Annexure C (Colly) to this petition] for the Assessment Year 2014-15; (b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay the implementation and operation of the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 along with consequential demand notice dated 29.03.2022 [at Annexure B Colly) to this petition] as well as the impugned rectification order dated 04.07.2024 along with consequential demand notice dated 09.07.2024 [at Annexure C (Colly) to this petition] for the Assessment Year 2014-15; (c) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps towards recovery of demand as per the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 along with consequential demand notice dated 29.03.2022 [at Annexure B (Colly) to this petition] and the impugned Rectification Order dated 04.07.2024 with consequential demand notice dated 09.07.2024 [at Annexure C (Colly) to this petition] for the Assessment Year 2014-15; 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The petitioner filed return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 21.01.2015 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ and book profit at Rs. 1,27,73,560/-. 3.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment order dated 20.12.2016 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’] accepting the returned income. 3.3 Thereafter, notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the year under consideration which according to the petitioner, was served by Email dated 01.04.2021. 3.4 During the course of re-assessment proceedings, various details were called for by the Assessing Officer which were duly furnished by the petitioner. 3.3 Thereafter, notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the year under consideration which according to the petitioner, was served by Email dated 01.04.2021. 3.4 During the course of re-assessment proceedings, various details were called for by the Assessing Officer which were duly furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act by order dated 29.03.2022 determining the total income at Rs. 64,53,72,000/-. 3.5 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) on 23.04.2022. 3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that a controversy revolving around the reopening was going on for the notices issued under section 148 during the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under the Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 [‘TOLA’ for short] by following the provisions of section 147 and 148 applicable till 31.03.2021 despite the fact that new regime for reopening of assessment was applicable with effect from 01.04.2021. 3.7 The Hon’ble Apex Court, by Judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed in case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR page 1 (SC) adjudicated the issue as to the validity of such reopening notices deemed to have been issued under the new regime after 01.04.2021 as a valid notice. 3.8 It appears that the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court again initiated reassessment proceedings in case of the petitioner for the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and order dated 26.07.2022 was passed thereafter under section 148A(d) of the Act holding that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.64,53,72,000/- in the hands of the petitioner. 3.9 It is the case of the petitioner that once the notice under section 148 was issued by the respondent for assessment pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), the earlier assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act would become infructuous. 3.9 It is the case of the petitioner that once the notice under section 148 was issued by the respondent for assessment pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), the earlier assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act would become infructuous. 3.10 It also appears that the petitioner challenged the action of reopening before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 19145 of 2022 which was allowed by Judgement and Order dated 07.02.2023 on the ground of limitation while deciding the similar matter following the lead matter being in case of Keenara Industries Private Limited vs. ITO reported in (2023) 453 51 (Guj). 3.11 The petitioner thereafter raised an online grievance on 15.02.2023 requesting the department to quash the earlier assessment order. However, the said grievance was closed on 16.03.2023 with a remark that the petitioner has sought quashing of the order passed by NaFAC against which, the appeal is pending before the first appellate authority and therefore, it is not possible to quash the order as the reassessment proceedings are again initiated by the department in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). The petitioner, therefore, by letter dated 25.03.2023 informed the respondent authority about the decision passed by this Court in case of Special Civil Application No. 19145/2022 whereby, the proceeding for the year under consideration which were again initiated by passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.07.2022 was quashed. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that once the reassessment notice issued under section 148 dated 26.07.2022 based upon the order of the same date passed under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside, the assessment order passed on 29.03.2022 would not survive and therefore, both the assessment orders as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner before CIT(A) have become infructuous. 3.12 It appears that the respondent issued recovery notices dated 20.07.2022, 06.11.2023, 22.12.2023 calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding demand of Rs. 44,27,36,277/- raised for the year under consideration consequent to the assessment order dated 29.03.2022. 3.12 It appears that the respondent issued recovery notices dated 20.07.2022, 06.11.2023, 22.12.2023 calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding demand of Rs. 44,27,36,277/- raised for the year under consideration consequent to the assessment order dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner raised objection online on 22.12.2023 categorically pointing out that the respondent has already accepted in order dated 26.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act that similar proceedings under section 148 of the Act had become infructuous and therefore, the consequential demand in relation to such earlier proceedings cannot be enforced. 3.13 The petitioner therefore requested to await for the outcome of the order passed by the first appellate authority. 3.14 It appears that the petitioner has also made submissions before the appellate authority on 23.12.2023 to the effect that the re-assessment notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued by the revenue in the month of April, 2021 and therefore, the same would reopen the assessment, would not be tenable in the eye of law. 3.15 The respondent thereafter issued notice on 17.01.2024 whereby the petitioner was informed that since the return of income is filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2021 was furnished on 31.01.2022, the petitioner was liable to pay interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act and the petitioner was called upon to question as to why non-levy/short levy of interest under section 234A quantified at Rs. 20,63,726/- and interest under section 234B quantified at Rs.16,09,172 should not be added back to the computation of the tax liability. 4. The petitioner by letter dated 18.01.2022 filed reply to the aforesaid notice, however, the respondent by order dated 04.07.2024 passed under section 154 of the Act rejected the prayer made by the petitioner holding that the petitioner is liable for levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act and accordingly, the amount payable by the petitioner for the year under consideration was quantified at Rs. 44,44,95,657/- and later on demand notice dated 09.07.2024 was also issued for the same. 5. The respondent thereafter issued recovery notices dated 11.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding demand including the interest levied under sections 234A and 234B of the Act quantified at Rs. 44,44,85,657/- by virtue of the order passed under section 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 5. The respondent thereafter issued recovery notices dated 11.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding demand including the interest levied under sections 234A and 234B of the Act quantified at Rs. 44,44,85,657/- by virtue of the order passed under section 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani for the petitioner submitted that relying upon the order dated 17.05.2023 of the Hon’ble Apex Court whereby the decision in case of Keenara Industries (supra) was stayed , the respondent authority have again initiated the proceedings of re-assessment by issuing notice dated 27.05.2023 under section 142(1) of the Act. 6.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani submitted that the show-cause notice dated 27.05.2023 was issued after this Court allowed Special Civil Application No. 19145/2022 filed by the petitioner whereby, the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 were quashed and set aside consequent to the decision in case of Keenara Industries Private Limited (supra) was rendered in Special Civil Application No. 17321 of 2022. 6.2 It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has preferred this petition as the respondent was issuing the notices upon the petitioner to pay outstanding demand raised for the year under consideration consequent to passing of the Assessment order dated 29.03.2022. It was pointed out that such notice of demand are issued in spite of the fact that the order dated 29.03.2022 would not survive in view of the subsequent order dated 26.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. 6.3 It was further submitted that after filing of the petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court has rendered the decision in case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) whereby, the decision in case of Keenara Industries Ltd (Supra) has been reversed. The Hon’ble Apex Court has arrived at a following conclusion in case of Rajiv Bansal (supra)which reads as under: “114. The Hon’ble Apex Court has arrived at a following conclusion in case of Rajiv Bansal (supra)which reads as under: “114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: a. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March2021; c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148 ; d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151 . The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 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;” 6.4 It was submitted that in view of the above decision, the effect of the assessment order dated 29.03.2022 is required to be considered as to whether the petitioner would be liable for the demand raised in the said order or not? It was submitted that the order dated 29.03.2022 cannot be implemented as the same has become infructuous. 7. On the other hand, Learned Advocate Mr. Sanghani submitted that the respondent is required to frame assessment as per the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal(supra). 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that once the notice under section 148 dated 31.01.2021 was served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021, the same is issued and served after 31.03.2021 i.e. during the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 as per TOLA. 9. Therefore, the assessment order passed pursuant to the notice under section 148 dated 29.03.2022 would become infructuous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). The respondent has thereafter issued notice under section 148 of the Act pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2021 shall not survive and consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner would also not survive as the assessment order passed pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2021 would not be a valid assessment order passed pursuant to such notice and a fresh assessment order will have to be passed as per the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 is declared as void and non existent order in view of the subsequent notice issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022. Consequently, recovery notice and order passed under section 154 of the Act would also not survive and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby declared to have become infructuous. 11. Consequently, recovery notice and order passed under section 154 of the Act would also not survive and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby declared to have become infructuous. 11. However, it is clarified that the respondent shall be at liberty to conclude assessment proceedings as per the notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act as per the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 12. The petition is accordingly disposed of as no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.