TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lows : "1. The assessee submits that in the present case, the appellate order u/s. 250 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y.2016 received by the appellant through email on 11.01.2024. Thus, the due date for filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT was 11.03.2024. The appeal is being filed on 30.04.2024. Thus, there is a delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. The assessee submits that the above delay in filing the appeal was on account of reasonable cause. 2. In this regard, it is submitted that the appellate order passed u/s 250 dated 11.01.2024 was not received physically by post, but the same was received on email. The appellant individual, who is only a matriculate resides in rural town of Sangamner and he is not into the practice of checking emails regularly. Therefore, the email containing the appellate order went unnoticed from the side of the appellant individual. 3. It is to be noted that around the first week of March 2024, the appellant contacted his tax consultant to enquire the status of appeal. At that time, on verification, it was noticed that the appellate order u/s 250 was already passed on 11.01....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicated on merits." 4. After hearing both the sides we notice that the appeal fees has been paid on 10.03.2024 which is within the due date of filing the appeal which was 11.03.2024. We have also gone through the averments made in the condonation application filed by the assessee and find that due to 'reasonable cause' assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time limit. We therefore condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). 5. We will first take up ITA No.893/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 as the lead case. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 1,38,39,394 made by the A.O. by taxing entire deposits in bank account held with Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Credit Co-op. Society, in the asst. order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 without appreciating that the said addition made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndisclosed income u/s. 68 in the hands of the appellant. 7] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in the ITRs filed from A.Y.2020 21 onwards, the appellant had duly disclosed income from the above business of trading in livestock and therefore, in the absence of any material brought on record to prove that the entire deposits made in bank account constituted income of the appellant, there was no reason to tax the entire cash deposits as income u/s 68. 8] Without prejudice to the above grounds, it is prayed that if at all, any addition u/s. 68, is to be sustained, then the A.O. may be directed to tax only peak cash deposits made during the year after allowing benefit of cash withdrawals made from the same account and the entire cash deposits may not be taxed as income of the appellant. 9] The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal." 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and based upon the information that huge cash has been deposited in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society (in short SRM). On the basis of this information search u/s. 132 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Jt. CIT is stated to be 'not pressed'. (iv) On merits of the case, it has been contended that the alleged deposits in the bank account are basically the turnover of the assessee from the business of trading in Livestock and cash deposits are the sale consideration received from various customers. He submitted that normally the net profit is in the range of 1% to 2% in this kind of business. Reference made to the Audited financial results of A.Y. 2020-21, A.Y. 2022-23 and A.Y. 2023-24 where the net profit has been declared at 1.35%. Reference also made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Haroon Shaikh Vs. ITO - ITA Nos. 1717 and 1715/PUN/2024 order dated 12.02.2025 where the estimated net profit from trading in Livestock has been held to be @1.5%. (v) He also raised an alternate plea that in case the assessee fails to succeed on the legal issue as well as on the quantum addition regarding the net profit percentage, then the addition may be sustained based on the Peak balance theory. 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee failed to appear before ld. AO eventhough sufficient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice of the respondent department either on 01.04.2021 or on subsequent date. In this situation, Hon'ble Court has held that since the notice has been issued after 31.03.2021 re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation and notice u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. Hon'ble Court has referred to the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Parveen Amin Bhathara Vs. ITO reported in (2022) 446 ITR 201, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh in the case of Yuvraj Vs. ITO and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 329. Hon'ble Court has held that the impugned notices in all these batch of writ petitions are barred by limitation u/s. 148 and 149 of the Act since the said notices have left the ITBA portal on or after 01.04.2021. Hon'ble Court has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 order dated 04.05.2022 wherein it is held that for any notice of re-assessment on or after 01.04.2021 it would be under the new amended law which would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O has issued the notice u/s 148 only on 1st April, 2021 as per the communication reference ID 100033652101 and also the relevant notice was delivered to the assessee through the email dated 01.04.2021 at 8.27 AM. Therefore, it is clear from the above information that the AO has generated the document only on 01.04.2021 and there is no other counter submissions made by the Revenue. Therefore, based on the evidence brought on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO only on 01.04.2021. 13. We noticed that sections 148 was amended and introduced new provisions 148A, 148B in the Finance Act 2021. The above provisions are applicable with effect from 01.04.2021. As held in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar P. Ltd (supra), the date of issuance of notice is the date on which the digitally signed as well as were emailed to the assessee is the date of issue of notice. Therefore, as per the above decision, the notice was emailed to the assessee only on 06.04.2021 even though the ITA Nos.3902, 3923 & 3925/Del/2024 ITA Nos3906, 3905 & 3904/Del/2024 same was dated 31.03.2021, the same was held to be time barred. It is settled position of law as fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was only issued on 01.04.2021 and also, he was aware of the fact that new provisions are applicable with effect from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the assessment passed u/s 147 is without adhering to the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021 and it is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the order passed u/s 147 of the Act. In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 17. Respectfully following the ratio(s) laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and the decisions of Coordinate Benches in the above referred cases, we after considering the facts of the case find that the re-assessment proceedings for A.Y.2016-17 have been triggered by the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, but issued to the assessee on 03.04.2021, therefore ld. AO should have followed the new provisions of section 148 r.w.s.148A of the Act applicable from 01.04.2021 for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings. But since notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued on 03.04.2021 under the erstwhile old provisions applicable prior to 31.03.2021, the said notice u/s. 148 of the Act is invalid and bad in law and therefore the consequential re-assessment ....