TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the end of the relevant AY; approval granted u/s 151 by Pr. CIT-1 is without application of mind in mechanical manner; order u/s 148A(d) dt. 30-6- 22 & notice u/s 148 dt. 2-7-22 is invalid; in absence of a valid approval u/s 151 for A Y 16-17, assessment made u/s147 rws.144 rws. 144B would be invalid and is liable to be quashed." 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s148A(d) dt.30- 6-22 & notice issued u/s148 dt.2-7-22 by ACIT, Cir-1(1) is invalid as it is by ACIT, Cir-1(1), Raipur (i.e., 'Jurisdictional AO'), while it ought to have been made by 'faceless AO' after CBDT Notification No.18 dt.29-3-22, it is in violation of CBDT Notification dt.29-3-22 would be invalid; thus, assessment made u/s147 rws.144 rws.144B dt.24-3-23 by 'faceless AO' would be invalid and is liable to be quashed." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,22,40,000 on the count of unexplained income made u/s 69A; it is unjustified and is liable to be deleted." 4. "The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant did not file return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. As the appellant failed to reply to the notices issued, the A.O added Rs. 1,22,40,000/- as unexplained income of the appellant u/s. 69A of the Act and Rs. 3,64,334/- being net profit as per audit report as the appellant had not filed ITR. Order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 dated 24.03.2023 was passed accordingly. Aggrieved appellant filed this appeal. 10. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition u/s 69A by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but with no success. Therefore, the assessee had preferred the present appeal, which is under consideration before us. 11. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, referring to ground no. 1 of the present appeal have assailed the assessment, challenging the validity of approval granted by the competent / sanctioning authority u/s 151 of the Act. It was the submission that in absence of valid approval u/s 151 which is without application of mind and in mechanical manner by the PCIT-1, Raipur, who is not the specified authority to grant approval u/s 151 of the present case, the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 issued, become invalid on account of approval by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s extracted as under: b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA 108. The Income-tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from J April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow from the fiction. East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury' Borough Council [1952] AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed: "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it."] Therefore, the logical e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on I May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between I May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 I 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; 14. Based on aforesaid s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it and this fact is not contravened by the ld DR. For AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 isissued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly, we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed. (ii) Manoj Rajput vs DCIT-1(1) in ITA No. 360/RPR/2023, vide order dated 22.10.2024. 15. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation concur with the Ld. AR that in the present case before us for A.Y.2017-18, wherein notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2022, i.e. beyond a period of three years from the end of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uently, indeed, the matter at hand would be covered by the decision in Cipla, which inherently deals with the findings in Siemens. The following extracts would be relevant: - 9. The record clearly indicates that the sanction in the present case was issued by the Principal Commissioner which can only be in respect of cases if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, as would fall under the provisions of clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act. As in the present case the assessment year in question is 20 16-17 and the impugned notice itself has been issued on 30 July. 2022, it is issued after a period more than 3 years having elapsed from the end of the said assessment year. hence, clause (ii) of Section 151 of the Act was applicable, which required the sanction to be issued by either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General. Chief Commissioner or Director General for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 10. As rightly pointed out at the bar, such issue fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xhibit N) dated July 29,2022; (iv) Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. Vs DCIT in Writ Petition No. 149 of 2023 dated 02.07.2024, (Bom HC). 8. On a plain reading of Section 148A it is clear that the Assessing officer before issuing any notice under section 148 is required to follow the procedure as set out in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 148A. One of the pre-conditions as ordained by clause (d) of Section 148A is that an order under such provision can be passed by the Assessing officer only with the approval of "Specified Authority". Thus, necessarily when clause (d) of Section 148A provides for prior approval specified authority, it relates to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act providing for 'Specified authority for the purposes of Section 148 and Section 148A of the Act'. In the present case, Section 151 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and Section 148A as also introduced by Finance Act, 2021 have become applicable, as although the assessment year in question is 2016-17 in respect of which the assessrnent is sought to be reopened by issuance of notice under section 148, which is dated 30 July, 2022. Such amended provision would squarely become ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case based on the notification dated 31 March, 2020 issued under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short, 'TOLA') was concerned, the Court held that such notification was a subordinate legislation and it could not override the statute enacted by the Parliarnent and in that regard, the position in law was discussed by the Division Bench in paragraph 27 of the said decision. 12. In the present ease, it is not in dispute that an appropriate sanction of the specified authority as per the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act was not obtained and {Or such reason, certainly, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the impugned notices would be rendered bad and illegal. The petition accordingly needs to succeed on such ground of the Court requiring to delve on such issues of challenge as raised by the petitioner as also prior procedure adopted in that regard. 16. Based on aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that the sanction by the specified authority u/s 151(ii) was not in accordance with law, therefore, order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 issued beyond 3 ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt notices u/s 148 were issued by the concerned AO between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the said reassessment notices were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various High Courts. Respective High Courts (except Chhattisgarh High Court) held that all the reassessment notices issued under the erstwhile sections 148 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are bad in law as the reassessment notices issued after 01st April 2021 are governed by the substituted sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the High Courts set aside all the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4th May 2022 passed its judgment in the case of UOI & Others Vs. Ashish Agrawal [Civil Appeal No.3005/2022]. The gist of above judgment is given as under- (a) The object and Purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. The Revenue proceeded with the pre-amended provisions under a genuine and bonafide mistake and therefore some leeway must be shown in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct dated 28.06.2022 was rightly provided by the Pr. CIT-1, Raipur in this case. (3) This is new ground raised by the assessee which was not raised earlier during the course of assessment proceeding before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the ground raised by the assessee is baseless. Therefore, the same needs to be rejected. Gr.No.2 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s148A(d) dt.30-6-22 & notice issued u/s148 dt.2-7-22 by ACIT, Cir-1(1) is Invalid as it is by ACIT, Cir-1(1), Raipur (i.c., 'Jurisdictional AO'), while it ought to have been made by 'faceless AO' after CBDT Notification No.18 dt.29-3-22; it is in violation of CHDT Notification dt.29-3-22 would be invalid; thus, assessment made u/s147 rws.144 rws.144B dt.24-3-23 by 'faceless AO' would be invalid and is liable to be quashed." Clarification :- The assessee has misinterpreted the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 (Copy enclosed). The para 3 of the said notification is produced hereunder :- 3. Scope of the Scheme. . . For the purpose of this Scheme, -- (a) assessment, reassessment or recomput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s liable to be deleted." Clarification :- The Ld. CIT(A) had rightly sustained the addition of Rs.1,22,40,000/- on the count of unexplained income made u/s 69A in absence of reply of the assessee. The detailed discussion and determination has already provided in para 5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced hereunder :- 5. Determination and Decision : 5.1 During the appellate proceedings, notices were issued to the appellant from time . to time. However, he had not complied to the notices nor filed any submissions. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are adjudicated together. 5.2 It is pertinent that In order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. Communications dated 28/03/2024, 30/5/2024, 7/6/2024 and 19/06/2024. However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gain saying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../averments, constraining me to. therefore, go through the extremely brief non-speaking submission appearing in the grounds of appeal and statement of facts filed along with the impugned appeal to decide on the merits while adjudicating the same. But the narrative submission/contention made vide the statement of facts/grounds of appeal is by and large on the very same made at the time of instant assessment which the AO affer considering, has duly rejected or found without much ment leading him/her to add the same i.e., the disallowance/additions made in the said assessment order and enumerated in the impugned grounds against which I am constrained to concur with the AO's findings of fact and decisions thereof, more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submissions/documentations even during the instant appellate proceedings in this case to counter effectively the position adopted by the AO on the concemed issues and reduced in wnting in the assessment order. 5.6 In this case, it was seen that the appellant had shown fictitious purchases of Rs. 4,43,05,807/- from two companies during the F.Y. 2012-13. It was reported by Inv. Wing that the companies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ements placed before us in support of the contentions. As per facts of the present case, the first notice u/s 148 (under old regime) was issued on the assessee on 30.06.2021. Subsequently, following the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the proceedings of reopening are reinstated under new regime by issuing a notice u/s 148A(b) on 23.05.2022. In furtherance, a notice u/s 148A(d) along with order was issued on 01.07.2022 and notice u/s 148 (under new regime) was issued on 02.07.2022. As the present case pertains to AY 2016-17 and the notice u/s 148 for initiation of reopening assessment proceedings was issued on 02.07.2022, beyond the period of 3 years, which were elapsed on 31.03.2020. Accordingly, as per provisions of section 151(ii) the sanctioning authority under the new regime are Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, whereas in present case, the approval was granted by Ld. PCIT-1, Raipur, vide his approval letter F.No. Pr. CIT- 1/RPR/Tech/2022-23 dated 28.06.2022. The aforesaid facts are on recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scussed hereinabove, therefore, the remaining grounds of appeal either legal or on merits are not alluded upon for adjudication. 22. In result, the appeal of the assessee has been allowed, in terms of our observation. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2024. ============= Document 1 BC Before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur M/s.Keshri Rice Industries Assessee: dt. 12-12-24 C/o Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Behind Dr.Somnath Sahu Clinic, Ramsagar Para Raipur-492001 (CG) PAN-AAFFK8775R ITA No.410/RPR/2024 AY16-17 Application for condoning the delay of 10 days in filing of appeal in Form No.36 1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the assessce-firm has filed appeal for AY16-17 before the Hon'ble Bench in Form No.36 on 5-9-24 against the order passed u/s250 dt.27-6-24 by the Id CIT(A), (NFAC); the impugned order dt.27-6-24, came to knowledge of the partner of the assessee-firm on 8-7-24 and thereafter, after collecting papers/ documents from the regular counsel Shri Arun Gandhi, Chartered Accountant and has filed appeal in Form No.36 before the Hon'ble Bench on 5-9-24 in 59 days from 8-7-24 i.e., the date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....री अमृतलाल केशरवानी, मेसरà¥à¤¸ केसरी राइस इंडसà¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤°à¥€à¤œ, पता- आमासिवनी, रायपà¥à¤°- 492001 (छ.ग.), में पारà¥à¤Ÿà¤¨à¤° हूà¤à¥¤ जिसका PAN: AAFFK8775R & 1 $2. यह कि, मेसरà¥à¤¸ केसरी राइस इंडसà¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤°à¥€à¤œ का कर निरà¥à¤§à¤¾à¤°à¤£ वरà¥à¤· 16-17 का कर निरà¥à¤§à¤¾à¤°à¤£ आदेश ५/s147 दिनांक 24-3-23 को हà¥à¤† था। .3. यह कि माननीय आयकर आयà¥à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥€ गयी है जबकि मà¥à¤à¥à¤¨à¥‡ अपील आरà¥à¤¡à¤° R की जानकारी 8-7-24 को हà¥à¤ˆ थी और मैंने 5-9-24 को माननीय आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण के समकà¥à¤· फॉरà¥à¤® नं 36 में अपील दाखिल की है। O TA N SAJAL ILMAR SAHA NOTARY (Advocate) RAIPUR (C.G.) INDIA REGO.NO. C.G.1/15/RAIPUR ARH * Â¥ GOV 12 DEC 2824 Document 3 ।सतà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤ªà¤¨ // मैं उपरोकà¥à¤¤ शपथकरà¥à¤¤à¤¾ यह सतà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¤ करता हूठकि, इस शपथ पतà¥à¤° ....