TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,95,33,460/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had received an information that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry in the form of fictitious short term capital loss in equity/derivative trading in penny scrip JRI Industries & Infrastructure Limited and had booked loss of Rs. 93,03,935/- which was adjusted with taxable income. On the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act without appreciating that there was no compliance of provisions of section 148, 149, 151 of the Act and that the 5. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of short term capital loss of Rs. 93,98,910/- incurred on sale of shares of JRI Industries & Infrastructure Limited. 5. The first four grounds taken by the assessee pertain to reopening of the case and issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Shri Sakar Sharma, Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in this case on 18.05.2021. Subsequently, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC), the original not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 3) IBIBO Group Private Limited vs. ACIT - W.P. (C) 17639/2022 dated 13.12.2024 (Delhi High Court). 4) ITO vs. Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain - ITA No.2459/Mum/2024 dated 06.03.2025 - ITAT Mumbai. 5) Shatakshi Mudra Investment Private Limited - ITA No.26/KOL/2025 dated 10.03.2025 - ITAT Kolkata. 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that in all the above referred cases, the assessment year involved was 2015-16 and the issue was decided in favour of the tax payer by considering the submission of the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). 6. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Agal, Sr. DR submitted that the Revenue's submission before the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;" 7.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra) had considered the above submission of the Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and had given the following finding: - 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned." 7.3 In the case of IBIBO Group Private Limited (supra), similar finding was rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Shatakshi Mudra Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Bombay Tribunal in the case of Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain (supra) also have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 and 29.07.2022 respectively for A.Y. 2015-16 was void-ab- initio and bad in law. 7.4 In the present case also, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022. In v....