TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the reassessment proceeding initiated along with assessment order passed are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 is non-est as it does not have DIN on the body of such notice and accordingly the said notice and the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings initiated by JAO is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no notice under section 143(2) was issued/served on the appellant, hence the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings are contrary to section 144B of the Act and CIT(A) erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year. Addition of Rs. 48,82,10,037/- was made during AY 2013-14 on this issue. These facts have been gathered from assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-New Delhi, which is available on ITBB portal. It is also observed that case of Sh. Pahkaj Tiwari has also been assessed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of IT Act and addition of Rs. 6,20,000/- being cash seized during search operations of the DGCEI has been made vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016. 1.4 However no, assessment had been made in the case of the assessee, Shrí. Sushilkumar for the seized cash and thereby the said seized cash of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- escaped assessment for the A.Y.2013-14. Hence, the case of the assessee for the A.Y.2013-14 has been re-opened u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act." 4. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act vide order dated 25/05/2023 wherein the Ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 1,59,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 25/05/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/06/2024, dismissed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the old provision, notice u/s 148 of the Act could not have been issued after 31/03/2021. 8. On the issue of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, various writ petitions were filed before various Hon'ble High Courts and ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) decided the matter. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), the A.O. issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 26/05/2022. 9. In the present case, original notice has been issued u/s 148 of the Act (Old Provision) on 29/06/2021. Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act has been issued on 26/05/2022. Due date for filing reply to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act was 10/06/2022 and the Assessee filed reply on 09/06/2022. Therefore, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) the extended time by which notice should have been issued was on or before 10/06/2022. However, the actual notice has been issued on 26/07/2022 which is beyond the period of limitation. 10. In an identical situation the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available to ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 8 the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation -- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151." 14. Therefore, from the plain reading of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act, it is evident that no notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act. Further, clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act provides the time period of 10 years to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. We find that the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dment by the Finance Act, 2021, it is evident that the same provides period of 4 years, up to 6 years, and up to 16 years for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, provided the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the time limit of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2013-14, expired on 31/03/2018, and the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31/03/2020. Therefore, in the present case, the time period covered under the provisions of the TOLA, i.e. from 20/03/2020 ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 10 to 31/03/2021, only includes 30/03/2020, i.e., 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is evident from the record that the original notice under section 148 of the Act, which was deemed to be a notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), was issued on 29/06/2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) in paragraph-114(b) held that the TOLA will continue to apply to the Act after 01/04/2021 if a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 149 allows the exclusion of time allowed for the assesses to respond to the show cause notice under section 149A(b) to compute the period of limitation. The third proviso excludes "the time or extended time allowed to the assessee." Resultantly, the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court provided two weeks to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices. This period of two weeks is also liable to be excluded from the computation of limitation given the third proviso to Section 149. Hence, the total time that is excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices is: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, that is, from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices." 18. From the perusal of the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of a notice issued on 1 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 1 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 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty- one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022." 20. Therefore, the surviving/balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30/06/2021. Since, in the present case, we find that the period of 6 years ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) 13 from the end of the relevant assessment year expires on 31/03/2020, which falls within the time perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....home (P.) Ltd. v/s Income-tax Officer, reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi), by observing as follows: - "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 Act was received. Thus, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Ac....