TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act for AY 2020-21. 2. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said notice was issued pursuant to the information collected under section 135A of the Act, which pertains to the transactions entered by some other assessee (Manisha Jain) having a different PAN and having no relation with the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned notice was issued in an absolutely misconceived manner, vitiating the procedure laid down under section 148 of the Act. He laid emphasis on the objections dated 13.09.2024 filed by the petitioner vide which, he had sought for the reasons for reopening assessment and objecting to the remarks mentioned in the annexure to the impugned notice. He stated that even though the respondents did not counter or point out anything incorrect towards the objections of the petitioner, the said objection of the petitioner was disposed of by the impugned order. The extract of the said order is set out below: "The reply of the assessee has been perused and it is seen that in the case of the assessee information was received under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Benaifer Vispi Patel vs. Income Tax Officer, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 5 (Bom). 5. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the respondents had initiated proceedings against the petitioner based on the information collected by virtue of the procedure prescribed under the scheme notified under section 135A of the Act. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the exception under Explanation 1(iv) to section 148 permits the Assessing Officer (AO) to bypass the procedure prescribed under the provisions of section 148A of the Act, in cases where the authority is in possession of information gathered under the scheme of section 135A of the Act. In such cases, AO can directly issue a notice under section 148 of the Act and need not follow the procedure prescribed in section 148A. Therefore, under the above provision, providing documents to the assessee is not a mandatory requirement under section 135A of the Act. 6. He further submitted that the information collected by the respondents under section 135A of the Act was pertaining to the petitioner only, howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee, it has been observed that the assessee has not declared any such income in the ITR. The assessee has filed ITR-2 declaring gross total income of Rs. 81,24,740/-. Since, the assessee could not discharge the onus to justify the reported cash deposit of Rs. 22,44,647/- and failed to submit any valid justification or satisfactory documentary evidences regarding this. Hence, the reported cash deposit of Rs. 22,44,647/- stands unverified, and further verification is required on this issue reported for e-Verification." The aforesaid information was e-verified as per the e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024 by virtue whereof certain High Risk cases were identified for re-opening. Ostensibly, the respondents appear to have considered the case of the petitioner under the said Instruction. 12. Consequent to the information available with the respondents on Insight Portal, the AO sought approval from the Specified Authority under section 151 of the Act on reaching the prima facie satisfaction that the information is suggestive of the income escaping assessment to tax. This was in accordance with the scheme notified under section 135A read with Explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act is one and the same. 15. It appears that while issuing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, the respondents by pure inadvertence have annexed/attached the information pertaining to some other individual/assessee and not the petitioner. The said aspect appears to be an error or mistake and neither deliberate nor wilful. On account of such error/mistake or inadvertence, no fatality can be said to attach to the issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act. However, at the same time, the passing of the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 is absolutely unsustainable in overlooking the error apparent on the face of the record. It can be safely presumed that the authority did not apply its mind to the objections raised by the petitioner. 16. In this regard, we have also examined the provisions of section 292B of the Act. For convenience section 292B is extracted hereunder: "292B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisi....