TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in 26,05,000/- to the returned income of the appellant to the returned income of Rs. 27,36,580/- 3) Assessing officer erred in making addition u/s. 56(2) (vii) (b) of Income Tax Act. 4) Assessing officer has erred in issuing the notice for assessment as the notice itself was barred by the time. The assessment made itself is therefore bad in law and needs to be quashed. 5) Assessing officer erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 2.1. Assessee has also filed an application for revising his grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: "I. Condonation of delay: 1. The Id CIT (A) erred in rejecting the Application of Condonation of delay of 236 days without appreciating the complete facts II. Reopening is bad in law: 2. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29/07/2022 is after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year 2017-18 and the income escapement is below 50 lacs, i.e. Rs. 26,05,000/-, therefore reopening is bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to apprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g which is now rendered redundant being covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is being hereby closed. It is pertinent to mention that identification of the proceeding for closure has been done based on data extracted from the system, therefore, it is possible that in a rare case, a wrong proceeding gets closed. Therefore, the same will be restored if it would be noticed or informed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer or any Income Tax Authority that the proceeding which has been closed is not the proceedings covered by the aforesaid Supreme Court decision." 4.1. From the perusal of the above letter, it is noted that the first notice issued u/s. 148, dated 30.06.2021 was generated during the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under the old provisions of section 147 to 151. Since these proceedings were covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) dated 04.05.2022, the same were closed. 4.2. In the meanwhile, ld. Assessing Officer proceeded with show cause notice u/s. 148A(b), dated 27.05.2022 which was in consequence with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment proceedings, since at the relevant time he was facing certain medical problems of his child. To corroborate this, medical records are furnished along with the affidavit. A confirmatory letter is also placed on record from the tax practitioner to this effect. Further, assessee himself was also not keeping well during the relevant time for which medical documents are placed on record along with the affidavit. 4.4 To address the issue in hand before us, we need to delve into the understanding of the expression "sufficient cause". Sub-section 3 of Section 249 contemplates that the CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period, if he is satisfied that there was a "sufficient cause" for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. 4.5. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court mus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the intervening period, Department proceeded with the issue of show cause notice u/s. 148A(b), dated 27.05.2022 and thereafter passing an order u/s. 148A(d), dated 29.07.2022. Notice u/s. 148 in the new regime was thereafter issued on 29.07.2022. In the letter for closure of the first re-opening proceedings, it is noted that in view of existence of two e-proceeding for the same Assessment Year and section, the older proceeding is rendered redundant and is thus closed. Accordingly, the last notice u/s. 148 issued by the ld. Assessing Officer, dated 29.07.2022, which is under the new law. When this notice is taken into consideration for the purpose of impugned assessment order, necessary compliance required u/s. 148A are not on record to demonstrate their compliance. The compliances u/s. 148A referred above relate to the first and original notice which was issued under the old regime and subsequently withdrawn / closed. 5.1. Secondly, on the approval aspect, it is obtained from PCIT-19, Mumbai. When the latest notice u/s. 148, dated 29.07.2022 is considered, it is beyond period of three years from the end of the year under consideration, i.e., 2017-18. The income alleged to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs." "68. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions. The substituted provisions apply retrospectively for past assessment years as well. On 1 April 2021, TOLA was still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and its notifications. Therefore, for issuing a reassessment notice under Section 148 after 1 April 2021, the Revenue would still ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chief Commissioner or Director General," "76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction, Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non- compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under Section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148." "81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned." Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime "after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A." Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s. 148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s. 148. According to the Hon'ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s. 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. 5.5. The time limit of three years lapsed on 31.03.2021 which falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 during which provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) would apply. Accordingly, the amended provisions under the Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for granting of approval till 30.06.2021 by the specified authority. 5.6. Thus, on the above stated facts and law, in the present case, three years had lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year when the order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29.07.2022. In the present case, since the notice u/s. 148 and order u/s. 148A(b) have been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, case of the assessee falls within the provisions of section 151(ii) of the amended law whe....