2025 (2) TMI 980

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [hereinafter referred as 'the Act']. 2. The grounds taken by the Revenue are as follows: "1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing appeal of the assessee and quashing the assessment order. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the requirements u/s 151(ii)(a) of the Act were not fulfilled, while issuing reassessment notice u/s 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in this case." 3. On hearing, Learned DR has questioned the impugned order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the basis that as assessee had delayed filing of the return that led to treating the same as invalid but also delayed the assessment, therefore, according to the Learned DR the impugned order o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat since the return was filed with much delay beyond time allowed, the system was not accepting the return and the AO was not able to verify the filing of return on system/portal since the same was filed recently. The appellant did not transmit copy of ITR-V to the AO, it simply asked for reasons of re-opening vide its letter dated 19.02.2022 which was provided by the AO to the appellant. The AO then proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and added the sum of Rs. 3.00 Crores to the total income of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act holding the same to be unexplained money representing alleged accommodation/bogus entries taken by the appellant from entity(s) controlled by said Mr. Himanshu Verma. 5. The case of assessee was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the name of the party and date of the transactions which clearly show that he had acted on very vague information without any detail and cogent material. 6. We find that NFAC has observed that in this case, the notice u/s 148 bears the date as 31/03/21 whereas, the notice is digitally signed by the AO on 01/04/2021. Vide Ground No. 2, the appellant contends that Notice u/s 148 was non-existent on the date of issue on 31/03/2021 as the same was digitally signed by the AO on 01-04-2021 and reassessment order passed on the basis of such notice is liable to be quashed. NFAC took note of the fact that whole scheme of re-assessment has been changed w.e.f. 01.04.2021 by The Finance Act 2021. NFAC examined the issue if the reopening notice in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scribed. Thus, considering the provisions of Section 282 and 282 A of the Act, 1961 and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 2000 and meaning of the word "issue" NFAC concluded that firstly notice shall be signed by the assessing authority and then it has to be issued either in paper form or be communicated in electronic form by delivering or transmitting the copy thereof to the person therein named by modes provided in section 282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice i....