TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which emanated after carrying out of search uis 132 on 20.10.2016 in the case of M/s Risa International Limited. 2.2 sound & detailed report of Directorate of Investigation (Income Tax), from which it is clearly evident that prices have beun 1 manipulated to launder unaccounted money by beneficiaries (read assessee niso) by accepting cash, 2.3 that during reassessment proceedings, assessee has not mentioned even mode of transaction as to purchase of scrips of M/s Risa International Ltd, not to speak of adducing any evidence as to payment of consideration for said purchase. During appellate proceedings, it is conceded that the same was purchased through cash. This very fact speaks volumes about the ungenuine transactions. 2. that transfer of physical scrips in the name of assessee is of no relevance, when as per findings, it was a racket involving M/s Risa International Ltd and therefore it was easy to physically transfer the shares on backdates. 2.5.) that many incongruities as pointed out by AO in assessment order remained to be controverted as from contract note in respect of purchase of said scrip, it is noticed that trade numbers are same for four trading options. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n SLP No. 57209/2024, have clearly held that the reassessment proceedings initiated post the judgement of the "UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16 is clearly time barred. 3. That the jurisprudence developed after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, in Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024, by various other cases is that the reassessment proceedings initiated post the judgement of the "UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal' in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16 is time barred 4. That the CIT (A) has erred in law in dismissing the ground, wherein the assessee/respondent has asked for an opportunity of cross examination." 2. The assessee in its Cross Objections has challenged the legality of the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, they are decided first. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 15,93,210/-. The AO on the basis of information that assessee has a suspicious transactions related to long term gain of Rs. 56,69,950/- through M/s Risa In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of TOLA are not applicable. Ld. AR further submits that during the course of hearing in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajiv Bansal in Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024, the Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. N. Venkataraman has made a statement at a Bar that the Revenue will drop all the notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 related to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is, thus, prayed by the Ld. AR that the notices issued in the instant case for Asst. Year 2015-16 u/s 148 being after 1st April, 2021, therefore, the same deserves to be dropped and consequently the re-assessment order be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the matter be decided in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal in Civil Appeal No.8629/24 (supra). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by Ld. CIT(A) against which the Revenue vide an appeal, however, since, the legal issue is raised with regard to the limitation of procedure initiated u/s 147 of the Act in Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, Including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment year (1) Within 3 Years (2) Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) (3) Within six Years (4) Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (5) 2013-2014 31.03.2017 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 2014-2015 31.03.2018 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 2015-2016 31.03.2019 TOLA not applicable 31.03.2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....57/2023 vide order dated 24.03.2025 has also expressed the same view. 10. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025 vide its order dated 2nd April, 2025 in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CBDT & Ors. in identical fact has allowed by SLP field by the Revenue and disposed of the appeal by making following observations: "2. These appeals arise from the order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 dated 1.2.2023 and 2544 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023 respectively by which the High Court disposed of the original writ petitions in the following terms:- "1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue Department on behalf of Opposite Parties is taken on record. 2. In view of the order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions of which W.P. (C) No.9191 of 2022 (Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax Officer) was a lead matter and the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2023 passed in W.P. (C) No.36314 of 2022 (Shiv Mettalicks Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur), t....