AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;Ld. AO'] in passing the assessment order dated 11th May 2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144B read with section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] determining total income of the Appellant at Rs.1,77,22,061/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant strongly objects to the impugned order passed by NFAC as the same is illegal, arbitrary and perverse on the following amongst other grounds which are urged without prejudice to one another: - 2. Notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law i. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer fell in error of law in issuing the notice dated 31st July 2022 under section 148 of the Act by obtaining approval of inappropriate authority. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the notice was issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the impugned assessment year. Hence, the approval taken from Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai is against the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148 as well as the reassessment order passed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appreciate that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant had furnished DVO's report for the adjacent flat wherein the value was determined at par with the value of the Appellant's flat. Hence, the Ld. AO is not justified in rejecting the DVO's valuation of the adjacent flat without referring the matter to the DVO. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs.1,41,89,511/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 4. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, the same are not leviable. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has asserted for his submissions primarily on the legal issued raised in the above stated grounds. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 reporting total income at Rs.35,32,550/-. According to the information available with the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs.1,84,80,000/- whose value as per Stamp Duty Authority is Rs.3,26,29,511/-. Owing to variation in the purchase consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty value of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2022 by raising objections on the issue of notice u/s. 148A(b). Assessee also claimed that he had purchased the immovable property for which advance was given in March, 2015 and placed copy of agreement along with written submission on record. Claim of the assessee was not accepted and ld. Assessing Officer concluded that it is a fit case for issuing notice u/s.148. For this purpose, in para 8 of the order passed u/s.148A(d), dated 31.07.2022, he noted that necessary approval for passing this order and issuance of notice u/s.148 was taken from PCIT-17, Mumbai. Consequent to this order passed by ld. Assessing Officer, notice u/s.148, dated 31.07.2022 was issued with ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai as the undersigning authority. The said notice is manually signed by the ld. Assessing Officer who is identifiable. 5. On the above stated facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee has emphasised on that aspect of the legal issue which is not in compliance with the provisions of law that is approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 under the new regime as contained in ground No.2(i). Other aspects of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. 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 difference between actual purchase consideration and stamp authority valuation of Rs.1,41,89,511/- has not been offered by the assessee for taxation. 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 2017-18 lapsed on 31.03.2021. 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. We find that in a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) 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 Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and keeping the same in juxtaposition with the above observations and findings of the Hon'ble Court, we note that the issue we are presently addressing raised before us is not 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 subjec....