TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax reassessment proceedings quashed as cash deposits below Rs.50 lakh threshold under Section 147</h1> <h3>Bijendra Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Alwar</h3> Bijendra Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Alwar - TMI Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, and the consequential assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16.Validity of Order Under Section 148A(d):The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, arguing that the proceedings should be dropped as the deposited amount was less than the threshold for extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Authority, however, rejected the petitioner's contentions and proceeded with the notice under Section 148 of the Act.Jurisdiction and Notice Issuance:The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 148A was without jurisdiction as the cash transactions were found to be lower than initially assumed. The authority proceeded to issue a show cause notice under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, despite the cash deposits being clarified by the petitioner.Validity of Assessment Order:The petitioner raised objections about the jurisdiction to question the validity of the proceedings under Section 148A. The authority determined the income of the petitioner at Rs.15,18,900/-, citing lack of jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's arguments based on a previous judgment.Judgment and Conclusion:The High Court considered the submissions and material on record, finding that the authority had incorrectly concluded the amount deposited in cash, leading to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Court referred to a previous judgment and ruled that the action of the respondent was barred by limitation and, therefore, quashed the show cause notice and all consequential proceedings and assessment orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
