TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of notice under section 148 dated 22.07.2022 which is barred by limitation and in violation of law laid down in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. ACIT [WP 1778/2023; order dated 03.05.2024](Bombay HC). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuance of notice under section 148 in violation of provisions contained in section 151A of the Act and in violation of law laid down in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. ACIT [WP 1778/2023; order dated 03.05.2024](Bombay HC). 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuance of notice dated 22.07.2022 under section 148 without DIN thereby violating the binding direction as stated in Circular No. 09/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and in violation of law laid down in the case of Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. Asst. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 144 (Bombay HC) and Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. ACIT [WP 1778/2023; order dated 03.05.2024](Bombay HC). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 81,75,025/- on account of alleged bogus purchase merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." ITA No. 4103/MUM/2024 "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of initiating the assessment under erstwhile section 147 by obtaining an invalid sanction u/s 151(i) from JCIT-27(2), Mumbai which was ought to have been obtained from jurisdictional Pr. CIT as per section 151(ii) since a period of 4 years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year 2016-17. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of initiating the assessment u/s 147 of the amended provisions by obtaining an invalid sanction u/s 151(i) from Pr. CIT-27, Mumbai which was ought to have been obtained from Principal chi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal thereby violating the principles of natural Justice. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 61,71,452/- on account of payment made for alleged bogus purchase as unexplained money under section 69A merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion." 3. We first take up appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 for which brief facts are that assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2015, reporting total income at Rs. 2,04,070/- which was processed u/s 143(1). Case of the assessee was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of Act dated 28.06.2021. The said notice became deemed to be notice issued u/s.148A(b) under the new regime introduced by Finance Act, 2021 pursuant to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essly 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 3103.2019 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 not fall for completion during the period pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 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." 5.3. In view of above stated deliberation, both on facts and law including the applicable jurisprudence, we hold that notice for A.Y. 2015-16 issued on 15.07.2022 u/s 148 of the new regime is barred by limitation and hence bad in law, liable to be quashed, resulting in impugned reassessment proceedings as well as the impugned reassessment order bad in law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. In respect of Assessment Year 2016-17, assessee contended on the legal issue that approval obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice u/s 148 is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 under the new regime of reassessment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Brief facts relevant to the issue are that assessee filed its return of income on 03.09.2016, reporting total income at Rs. 1,24,410/- which was processed u/s 143(1). Case of the assessee was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of Act dated 25.06.2021. The sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. Admitted position of fact in this case is that income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment is more than Rs. 50,00,000/-, since ld. Assessing Officer has alleged that assessee had obtained accommodation entries for bogus bills amounting to Rs. 61,71,452/-. Also, it is undisputed that notice u/s.148 has been issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 lapsed on 31.03.2020. As per section 149(1)(b) of the Act (new regime), reassessment proceedings could have been initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year only if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment is more than Rs. 50,00,000/-. These admitted facts are relevant on the legal aspect relating to obtaining prior approval from the specified authority which are undisputed and nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the same. 8.1 We find that in the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), Hon'ble Court after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) had dealt with the issue in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three years time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021..... 81. This quote in Ashish Agrawal (supra) directed the Assessing Officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessee concerned." Further, it directed the Assessing Officers to issue a notice u/s.148 of the new regime "after following the procedure as required u/s.148-A." Although this quote waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s. 148A(d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the aspect of "when" for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s.148 but on the aspect of "by whom" it ought to have been issued. Ld. Sr. DR has contended that there is hierarchical escalation vis-à-vis obtaining approval for issuing notice u/s.148. In this respect, Hon'ble Court has very categorically held in para 75 that the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime for the notices issued in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) after 01.04.2021. Reference by ld. Sr. DR to Section 149(1)(a) deals with time limit for issuing notice u/s.148. Contention of the ld. Sr. DR that there is no hierarchical escalation for obtaining prior approval for issuing notice u/s.148 is not in coherence with the guidelines mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated above. Repeatedly, Hon'ble Court has stated including by way of illustration that TOLA extends time line from the old regime which survives making the notice validly issued subject to the approval requirements of Section 151 under the new regime. Accordingly, the prior approval requirement is mandated under the section 151 of new regime. 8.4. In the prese....