TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them together and are disposed of together. ITA No. 4286/Mum/2024 is taken for limitation issue and ITA Nos. 4287 & 4288/Mum/2024 are adjudicated on the ground of sanction of notices u/s 148 of the Act. ITA No. 4286/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) 2.1 The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - NFAC erred in conforming the actions of the Assessing Officer of re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the re-assessment is barred by limitation as per section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Re-assessment is without jurisdiction, void and bad in law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - NFAC erred in conforming the actions of the Assessing Officer of re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act based on invalid sanction u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That the entire reassessment proceeding is void-ab-initio. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - NFAC erred in conforming the assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dity of the notice under Section 148, as well as the approval process, before the Ld. CIT(A), while also disputing the substantive facts of the case. After examining the matter, the Ld. CIT (A) rejected the assessee's contentions on both procedural and factual grounds. Aggrieved by the appeal order, the assessee has now filed an appeal before this tribunal. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the records presented before us. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) has primarily relied on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal v. Union of India, (2022) 138 Taxmann.com 64 and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC) to argue their case. 5. The first issue pertains to the limitation for issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act under both the old and the new regimes. The Ld. AR has heavily relied on the afore-mentioned judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. The detailed facts, including the timeline of events for issuing notices for the relevant assessment years, are as follows: Particulars AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Notice u/s 148 as per old regime (deemed to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion on 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021 till 30/06/2021. The issue is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Respectfully considering the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) the relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below:- "112. Let us take the instance 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. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defenses, including the def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en (3) grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant has contended vide ground No. 1 that the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30/06/2022, which was beyond the stipulated period of six years and therefore barred by limitation, The appellant has also contended that notice u/s. 148 was issued after 01/04/2021, when an altogether new regime of taxation related to "reopening of assessment", had come into force, in the form of section 148A and sub-sections thereof. In this regard, the appellant has claimed that the notice cannot be issued beyond 3 years as per the amended provisions of the section. Before adjudicating the appeal, the allegation of belated issue of notice u/s. 148 as raised in the appellant vide the Ground No. 1 of the appeal needs to be deliberated. In the said submission, it is contended that notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 30-06-2022 was issued which is beyond the stipulated period and therefore barred by limitation. The contention of the appellant in this regard is not acceptable as the AO has issued and served the notice u/s. 148 initially on 23/06/2021 and subsequently in compliance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t's decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal Vs. UOI has issued the notice as per the provisions of the Act. In view of the above discussion, this argument of the appellant is therefore rejected. 8. Upon review, we find merit in the Ld. AR's argument. The ruling in Rajeev Bansal (supra) explicitly addresses the issue of limitation for notices issued under the new regime. The relevant observations from paragraphs 112 and 113 of the judgment clarify that any reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit is invalid. For AY 2015-16, the surviving time limit was exceeded, and the notice issued on 30/06/2022 is therefore barred by limitation. The Ld. CIT (A) observed that the notices under Section 148 were issued in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and the escaped income for AY 2015-16 exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, and therefore, the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act applied. The Ld. DR could not present any contrary facts or rulings to refute the submissions of the Ld. AR. Respectfully following the decisions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), we hold that the notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 15. In assessee's case from the perusal of para 3 of the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2016-17 we notice that the same is issued with the prior approval of Pr.CIT-19 Mumbai accorded on 29.07.2022 vide reference No. Pr.CIT 19/148/2022-23 and this fact is not contravened by the ld. DR. For AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed." 10....