JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Rule. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil G. Yajnik waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner – assessee has challenged the impugned notice dated 27.05.2022 passed under Section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “ the Act”) and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 27.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Assessing Officer issued notice dated 26.04.2021 under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15 during the extended time period as per Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 [(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (for short “TOLA”). 4. In view of the decision of Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid notice was to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) of the Act, which has come into statute with effect from 01.04.2021. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) has laid down the law to consider such notice as valid notice or invalid notice depending upon the surviving time left between the date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act read with Section 3(1) of TOLA upto 30.06.2021 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) 6. This Court in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward(2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both the sides and has held as under :- “65. This Court in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. Income Tax Officer, Ward(2), Surendranagar (Judgment dated 08.07.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6387 of 2023 and allied matters) has considered in detail the submissions made by both the sides and has held as under :- “65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering ‘surviving time’ between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be considered and for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within ‘surviving time’ as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not. 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. Therefore, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of ‘surviving time’ as per the directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment Years 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 67. For the Assessment Years 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to be considered to find out ‘surviving time’ to decide as to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra): SCA No. AY Date of Notice under Section 148 (TOLA) Surviving Time Available till 30.06.2021 (Days) Date of Providing Information under Section 148A(b) 6387/2023 2013–2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022 5688/2023 2014–2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022 22260/2022 2016–2017 30.06.2021 1 23.05.2022 996/2023 2017–2018 30.06.2021 1 24.05.2022 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of ‘surviving time’ as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and therefore, such notices would be invalid notices. 69. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the ‘surviving time’. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.” 7. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. 70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.” 7. In the facts of the case, as the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) are time time barred and all such petitions were disposed of by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), wherein the Revenue conceded to the effect that so far as Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned, Revenue could not have issued the notices under Section 3(1) of TOLA as considering the time period as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019, which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022, which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, even by applying the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as Rajeev Bansal (supra) , would be invalid. 8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil G. Yajnik at the outset has pointed out distinguishing feature in the present matter and has submitted that before the Appellate Authority , the petitioner – assessee has not participated and had ignored multiple notices issued which has been served upon the petitioner. It is thus submitted that despite repeated notices the petitioner – assessee failed to supply any response and hence, it is urged that the matter may be remanded to the concerned appellate authority, in view of the subsequent orders passed by this Court and the Judgment and Order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bhansal (supra). 9. We find that the petitioner – assessee has totally ignored the statutory proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has chosen not to participate in the appeal proceedings after having preferred the same. In view of the observations made by the authorities concerned, we find no infirmity in view adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) about the conduct of the petitioner. In view of the observations made by the authorities concerned, we find no infirmity in view adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) about the conduct of the petitioner. At the same time we cannot ignore the law laid down in the case of Rajeev Bhansal (supra). In view of the conduct and indolent approach of the petitioner- assessee in not participating in the appellate proceedings after filing of the appeal requires to be deprecated this conduct though we are allowing the petition, we direct the petitioner – assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- before the Registry of this Court. The impugned notices dated 27.05.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and all the consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.