TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the limitation of 6 years as per first *proviso of sec 149(1)(b); reopening of reassessment u/s 148/147 is invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) (Born); Arati Marketing (P) Ltd (2024) (Cal HC); New India Assurance Co Ltd (2023) (Born); Keenara Industries PL (2023) (Guj); Rajeev Bansal (2023) (All HC). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s 148 dt.29-7-22 is invalid; issued by ITO-1(1), Raipur (i.e., the 'Jurisdictional AO'), while it ought to have been made by 'faceless AO' after the scheme framed u/s 151A dt.29-3-22/ CBDT Notification No.18 dt.29-3-22; impugned notice u/s 148 dt. 29-7-22 issued by ITO-1(1) in violation of scheme framed u/s 151A dt.29-3-22, would be invalid; hence, assessment made u/s 147 rws.143(3) rws.144B dt.30-5-23 would be invalid and is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,29,87,000 i.e., alleged bogus purchase of 'goods' from 8 parties; assessee is 'trader in goods'; 'corresponding sales' of such trading items has been accepted by AO; addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 dt.29-7-22 issued by the JAO in violation of scheme framed u/s 151A dt.29-3-22, would be in valid; hence, assessment made u/s 147 rws.143(3) rws.1448 dt.30-5-23 would be invalid and is liable to be quashed." Addl. Gr. No. 3 "On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,29,87,000 i.e., alleged bogus purchase of 'goods' from 8 parties; assessee is 'trader in goods'; 'corresponding sales' of such trading items has been accepted by AO; addition of Rs. 2,29,87,000 is unjustified; is liable to be deleted; relied on Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia (2022) (Born HC)." Addl.Gr.No.4 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ClT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,29,87,000 on disallowance of business expenditure i.e., purchases of goods, is unjustified; assessment made u/s 143(3); books of account has been accepted; sales of Rs.13,48,22,653 & purchases of Rs. 12,54,31,935 has been accepted; resultant GP would be 23.28% from GP shown at 6.23% (i.e., GP would increase by 17.05%) which is impossible in the 'trading business' of assessee; addition is liable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein elaborate submissions are made by the assessee, along with reliance on various judicial pronouncements, however, the same could not find favour from the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal of assessee was held to be dismissed. 7. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which is under consideration in the present case. 8. At the outset, Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA, Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee, (in short "Ld. AR"), sought the liberty to withdraw additional ground no. 3, 4 & 5 of the present appeal, to which no objection was raised by the revenue, therefore, additional ground no. 3, 4 & 5 are permitted to withdraw, consequently, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ld. AR further requested to take up the additional ground no. 1, raising the legal contention that the order u/s 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022 and notice of reopening u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022 for the AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR placed before us the following facts, contentions and dates of events: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT, Raipur in the case of kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Vs. ITO in ITA No. 307/RPR/2024 for the AY 2014-15 vide order dated 05.02.2025, wherein the aforesaid issue raised in the present case has been delt with and deliberated by the Tribunal and have held as under: 13. Apropos the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for framing the impugned assessment, the Ld. AR submitted that as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 is barred by limitation, therefore, the consequential assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 147r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.04.2023 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed on the said count itself. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR had taken us through a "Chart", as per which, notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 in the case of the assessee firm could have been issued latest by 16.06.2022. The Ld. AR submitted that as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act had been issued by the A.O on 25.07.2022 i.e. much after 16.06.2022, therefore, the same being barred by limitation was invalid. 14. Apropos the aforesaid issue, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctioning authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime are different from those specified under the old regime. 17. Also, Section 151 of the new regime specifies the following authorities for Sections 148 and 148A of the Act, viz. (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 18. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance Act, 2020 [for short "TOLA], had come into force with retrospective effect from March 31, 2020. Section 3(1) of TOLA extended the time limit for completion of actions or compliances under the "Specified Act", which fell for completion or compliance during the period from March 20, 2020 to March 31 2021. Section 3(1) of the TOLA empowered the Central Government to extend the time limit beyond 31st March, 2021 by a notification. In pursuance of its powers, the Central Government issued Notifications to ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed that the reassessment notices issued under the old regime shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A(b) of the new regime. Further, it was provided that the A.O shall within 30 days provide to the respective assessees, the information and material relied upon by the department, so that the assessee's could reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority u/s. 148A(a) was hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which had been issued u/s. 148 of the un-amended Act from 01-4-2021 till date, including those which was quashed by the High Courts. It was directed that the A.Os shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned and, thereafter, following the procedure as required u/s. 148A of the Act, they may issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agrawal (supra), wherein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The respective assessing officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the assessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a onetime measure vis à vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after following the due procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; (iv) All the defences which may be available to the assessee under section 149 and/or which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law and whatever rights are available to the Assessing Officer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open and/or shall continue to be available and; (v) The pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, 2021 to June 30, 2021. (iii) the department was directed to provide all the relevant material or information to the assessee's and thereafter, allow the assessee's to respond to the "Show cause notices" by availing all the defences including those available under Section 149 of the Act. (iv) that as per Section 148A(b) of the Act, the A.O. had to comply with two requirements, viz. (i) issuance of a show cause notice; and (ii) supply of all the relevant information which formed the basis of the show-cause notice. (v) the total time that was excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is, viz. (i) the time during which the show-cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1st April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show-cause notices. (vi) that the time surviving under the Act read with TOLA, 2020 that would be available to the department to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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;" 22. Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ld. AR for the assessee, after referring to the post- amended Section 148 r.w.s. 148A r.w.s. 149 of the Act (as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021) read in the backdrop of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, submitted that as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 had been issued beyond the surviving/balance period that was available with the A.O, therefore, the same was barred by limitation. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), had issued show- cause notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, dated 25.05.2022, Page 1 & 2 of APB, wherein the assessee firm was called upon to furnish its reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said letter. In compliance, the assessee firm which though ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; • the time period of two weeks (14 days) from the date of issuing of notice u/s. 148A(b) dated 26.05.2022 [as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal (supra)] lapsed on 08.06.2022; • the balance/surviving period available with the A.O to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act (under new regime) was 1 day [time between 30.06.2021 (the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148A of the Act) AND 30.06.2021 i.e. (extended time period under TOLA, 2020); • as the balance/surviving period available with the A.O for passing an order under clause (d) of 148A of the Act was 1 day i.e. less than 7 days, therefore, as per the "fourth proviso" to Section 148A of the Act, the period of limitation so available would stand extended to 7 days; • the A.O could have validly issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act (under the new regime) latest by 14.06.2022; 24. As the A.O in the present case had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 i.e. much subsequent to lapse of the period of limitation as was available with him upto 13.06.2022, therefore, as stated by the Ld. AR (subject to corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Raipur Madam, Sub :- Submission of report in the case of Kamlesh Kukreja, PAN: AHVPK6618C for A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA No. 379/RPR/2024 -reg.- Kindly refer to your letter F. No. JCIT-ITAT/RPR/REQ/2024-25 dated 22.01.2025 on the subject above. 2. In this regard, it is submitted that on the basis of information received from ITO(Inv.), Raipur, the case of the assessee was selected for re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for which the limitation to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act was upto 31.03.2021. However, due to the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, the limitation was extended by the Board till 30.06.2021 and accordingly the notice u/s 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 was issued on 30.06.2021 with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (who was the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act as the period was within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year). In the meantime, the judgment in the Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 in the case of UOI and other Vs Shri Ashish Agrawal & others was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.05.2022. 3. In compliance of the said verdict of the Apex Court, the information/mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex Court), however, the same remain undelivered, therefore, another letter was sent on 08.06.2022 through email which was duly delivered to the assessee on 08.06.2022 seeking reply in response to notice u/s 148A(b). The assessee was allowed to file his reply with other relevant material within two weeks from the date of said letter. However, no reply was filed by the assessee. Presuming that the assessee has nothing to say in compliance an order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 26.07.2022 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.07.2022 with prior approval of the specified authority i.e., Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that as the reopening proceedings are completed in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court the order u/s 148A(d) was well within time as per the Act. In terms of aforesaid submissions and contentions, it was the prayer that the contention of assessee regarding failure on the part of AO to issue SCN u/s 148(b), passing of order u/s 148A(d) and issuance of notice u/s 148 are barred by limitation, is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. 14. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date. 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022. 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation. 71. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AO is required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the end of the month following the month on which the reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts of present case, as we have observed that the same is squarely covered by the decision of this tribunal in the case of Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar Vs. ITO (supra), in terms of our decision and findings in the said case, wherein the period of limitation was computed in para 23 of the said order, following the same analogy the facts / dates of events of the present appeal are analysed as under: (i) Notice u/s. 148 of the Act under the old regime (deemed notice u/s 148A) was issued by the A.O to the assessee firm on 30.06.2021; (ii) show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued by the A.O to the assessee firm on 26.05.2022; (iii) the time period of two weeks (14 days) from the date of issuing of notice u/s. 148A(b) dated 26.05.2022 [as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal (supra)] lapsed on 08.06.2022; (iv) the balance/surviving period available with the A.O to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act (under new regime) was 1 day [time between 30.06.2021 (the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148A of the Act) AND 30.06.2021 i.e. (extended time period under TOLA, 2020); (v) as ....