TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following grounds of appeal : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) not justified in confirming the addition of cash deposited in bank Rs. 27,01,120/- u/s 69A r. w. s. 115 BBE of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the cash deposited in bank Rs. 27,01,120/-is out of regular business from explainable sources and duly reflected in the books of accounts in view of above addition made may please be deleted. 3. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal." 1.1 The Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amendment in the Section 151 in 2023 which needs to be considered as retrospective. The ld. DR also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal. In the written submission, ld. DR has submitted as under : "3.3.14 Upon holistic reading of the judgment, it can be inferred that retrospective amendments are generally not acceptable in cases involving substantive changes to the Act or introduction of new tax concepts. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that the lawmakers' intent is paramount in enacting statutes. The Court also held that if a literal interpretation of a statute leads to ambiguity or undermines its intended purpose, any subsequent clarificatory amendment should be construed retrospectively. The Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.] 5. In this case, it is an admitted fact that more than three years have been lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year. Therefore, as per Section 151 of the Act, the Competent Authority to approve the notice u/s. 148 and order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, is the ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income or ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in this case, notice has been approved by ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 5.1 The Hon'ble Jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act both are quashed and set aside." Unquote. 5.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pradeep Himatlal Shah Vs. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 471(Bombay) has held as under : "4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Thane-1. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside." 5.4 Thus, Hon'ble Bombay High Court explained the Amendment made in 2023 is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2023. 5.5 And also, ITAT Pune in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1933/PUN/2024, quashed the Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 13.04.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. 6. In the above referred decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2018-19 and order udder section 148A(d) of the Act, was passed on 07.04.2022. In the case of the assessee, Kai Ganpatrao Sakharam Pawar Nagari Sahakari ....