TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g effect over provisions of section 147/148. 2. That the whole proceedings undertaken u/s 147/148 are vitiated on account of following reasons:- a. Notice has been issued without jurisdiction and proper sanction. Notice is not as per provisions of law as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Further the new notice dated 28.07.20922 is also without proper sanction as per section 151 of the Income tax Act, 1961. b. The condition of Section 149 of escaped income being represented by 'asset' is not satisfied. c. reopening without providing the material which suggests escapement of income is against principles of Natural Justice. d. The Id. AO has issued notice u/s 148 without application of his independent mind and merely acted on the information received by him from another wing of the department. e. The Id. AO did not have complete information about alleged escapement of income by the assessee which did not satisfy the conditions stipulated u/s 147. f. The notice has not been issued in faceless manner as per provisions of section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That assessment made without providing the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022. As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of in the case of Union of India & ors vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022) read with instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by CBDT after following all the provisions of the Income tax act. In response to the notice assessee has filed the return of Income on 10/08/2022 by declaring total income at Rs. NIL. Statutory notice as required u/s. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act was issued from time to time. Based on the information available with the revenue it was found that assessee has infused unaccounted cash in his books of account through the bogus accommodation entry for an amount of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- from shell company. In view of the above facts, it was concluded that there is escapement of income for Rs. 1,37,00,000/- in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18. On verification of all the documents available it is found that assessee has made transaction with Mis Rati Diamonds (P) Ltd. and M/s Kripanidhi Gems (P) Ltd., which were paper companies. Through questionnaire assessee was requested to explain the nature of transaction done with these companies during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent mind before reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, I dismiss Ground No. 1 raised in this regard by the appellant. 7. Vide ground no. 2, the appellant contented that the issue of notice is illegal and unjust. The condition of section 149 of escaped income being represented by asset' is not satisfied. 7.1 During appellate proceedings, vide submission dated 13.02.2024, the appellant submitted that with regard to ground no. 2, it had already filed reply dated 13.06.2022 before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The same may be treated as part of this submission I have carefully gone through the reply filed by the appellant before the assessing officer dated 13.06.2022 7.2 In Ground No. 2, the appellant raised the contention that the notice u/s 148 is not maintainable as per section 149, as the alleged escapement does not represent "in the form of asset. It is undisputed fact that the instant case was reopened as the assessing officer had a reason to believe that the income otherwise chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, because of alleged accommodation entries on account of unsecured loans 7.3 Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee fair opportunity to put up its case. 8.1 The AO has given a finding that all the notices including the notice under section 148 of the Act, have been duly served on the address of the appellant and none of the notices have returned back. As noted from the assessment order, the AO has issued multiple notices and show cause notices which were duly served on the assessee. Following notices issued by the AO Notice u/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 Notice u/s 143(2) dated 23.12.2022 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 27.12.2022 Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 07.01.2023 Show Cause notice dated 02.05.2023 8.2 In the instant case, the assessee not only responded to the notices u/s. 142(1) and Show Cause Notice dated 07.01.2023 and 02.05.2023, but also, participated in the proceedings till the matter reached the Commissioner (Appeals) The assessee uploaded its reply on 10.01.2023 and 08.05.2023 in ITBA portal during assessment proceedings. Having responded and participated in the proceedings, the appellant cannot be allowed to turn around and raise objection that the appellant was not given proper opportunity before passing the re-assessment order. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 88,40,720/- liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE. The appellant further contented that Amendment to section 115BBE(2) made from Assessment Year 2017-18 restricts the set off of loss but there is no restriction on set off unabsorbed depreciation. Set off of Unabsorbed depreciation is on a different footing vis-a-vis Unabsorbed Loss. 10.2 Section 115BBE is inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013. Through Finance Act 2016, an amendment to sub-section 2 of Section 115BBE was carried out. The section reads as follows "After section 115BBD of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be inserted with effect from the ist day of April 2013, namely:- "115BBE. Tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 698 or section 69C or section 69D-(1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (a) The amount of income-tax calculated on income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance Act, 2016 to remove any ambiguity of interpretation, the Board is of the view that since the term 'or set off of any loss' was specifically inserted only vide the Finance Act 2016, wef 01.04.2017, an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under section 115BBE of the Act bill the assessment year 2016-17.. 10.4 It is undisputed that because of several court decision including Hon'ble Kerala High Court Kerala allows set off of business losses against unexplained income for the years prior to assessment year (AY) 2017-18 based on the Board's circular dated 19.06.2019 (Supra). Hence, in my opinion set off of loss includes business loss as well as unabsorved depreciation also. My view is got strengthen with this fact that New section 79A has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f. 01.04.2022, wherein it is clearly mentioned that no set off of losses, against any such undisclosed income, whether brought forward or otherwise, or unabsorbed depreciation under sub section (2) of section 32, shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing total income.. Therefore, since, the case at hand is o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, date of transactions, mode of transaction etc. but nothing was provided by the ld. AO even till date. On 04th May, 2022 the Hon`ble SC pronounced its decision in the case of UOI and Others v/s Ashish Agarwal and the CBDT also came out with instruction no. 01/2022 on 11.05.2022. In pursuance thereto the ld. AO issued a letter dated 01/06/2022 with the caption providing information and material relied upon for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (APB 8-9). In this letter an annexure A was provided containing the so called material wherein it was mentioned that as per Insight portal an information was flagged stating that the appellant had received accommodation entry from paper company operated by Shripal Vohara for Rs. 1.37 Crores. No any other sort of attachment was provided by the ld. AO. The ld. AO allowed 15 days time to file the response. The appellant filed response to this letter on 13.06.2022 (as narrated by ld. AO in order u/s 148A(d) and appearing at APB 11-13). Appellant raised various objections to this proceedings but the ld. AO passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by rejecting almost all objections raised by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as issued for which the time limit for issuance of the notice u/s 148 was not expiring during 20th March, 2020 to 31st March, 2021 and therefore there was no requirement of considering the said notice as covered in the judgement of the Hon`ble SC in the case of Ashish Agarwal, and benefit of TOLA is as such not available in the present case. This position was admitted by the ld. Additional Solicitor General of India during the hearing in the case of UOI v/s Rajeev Bansal and Others (Case Law PB 10-47) as mentioned in para 19 of the said order of the Hon`ble SC (Case law PB 17-18) . Hence the notice so issued has to be determined as has been issued under new regime only and as the notice was issued after three years the same was required to be issued with the prior approval of the PCCIT/PDGIT/CCIT/DGIT as per section 151(ii) as against which the same was issued with the sanction of JCIT (APB 5) and hence is invalid. Any way the ld. AO however undertook the exercise as per directions of the Hon`ble SC in the case of Ashish Agarwal and he issued a letter dated 01.06.2022 to the appellant providing material to the assessee for taking a fresh decision on issuance of notice u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 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 under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." Therefore as per the Hon`ble Apex Court also the notices issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after 01.04.2021 were required to be issued with prior approval of the higher authority as per section 151 of the new regime. In the instant case since both the notices dated 02.06.2021 and 28.07.2022 were issued after three years from end of assessment year and hence required prior sanction of PCCIT/PDGIT/CCIT/DGIT as against which the sanction was taken from JCIT and PCIT respectively and hence there is clearly violation to this mandatory condition making both these notices (APB 5 and 16) as issued without proper sanction and hence are illegal. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amend the structure for approval and sanction which stands erected by virtue of section 151. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act merely extended the period within which action could have been initiated and which would have otherwise and ordinarily been governed and regulated by sections 148 and 149 of the Act. If the contention of the respondents were to be accepted it would amount to us virtually ignoring the date when reassessment is proposed to be initiated and the same being indelibly tied to the end of the relevant assessment year. Once it is conceded that the notice came to be issued four or three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax would not be compliant with the scheme of section 151. We thus find ourselves unable to sustain the grant of approval by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax." The Hon`ble Delhi High Court has also very categorically mentioned that approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 was required to be taken as per time gap between the Assessment Year and time when this notice was to be issued and TOLA did not amend the hierarchy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of relevant material to the assessee in connection with reasons for initiation of reassessment proceedings vitiates the whole proceedings. In this cited case also the Hon`ble Court quashed the notice u/s 148 and the assessment order passed in consequence thereto due to failure of the AO in providing relevant material to the assessee. Therefore on this score also the reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. Copy of said judgement is available in case law APB 53-60. Non application of mind by the AO d. From the whole proceedings undertaken in this case it transpires that the ld. AO was having only a piece of information flagged on insight portal and only on the basis of such information he framed reasons to believe the concealment and issued notice u/s 148 without application of mind. It has been held by various judicial authorities that no notice u/s 148 can be issued on borrowed satisfaction of another wing or another officer of the department and the AO has to apply his independent mind for reaching on the satisfaction about concealment. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT-6 v/s Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground no. 1 to 3, the learned C.I.T. Appeals erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- as unexplained credit. The addition made is unjust and deserves to be deleted. The Ld. CIT (A) has sustained the action of the ld. AO in considering the alleged accommodation entry as unexplained cash credit by stating in paras 9.1 and 9.2 of his order as under :- a. As per assessment order the companies from whom appellant had raised loan during the year under consideration were paper companies and the ld. AO had concluded that the appellant managed the untaxed income earned during the year through these companies b. The appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that loans so raised by the appellant were not accommodation entries. The appellant did not produce any details regarding these transactions nor explained the source of amount involved in these transactions. On these observations of the ld. CIT (A) the appellant would like to submit :- 1. The ld. CIT did not take into consideration that the parties from whom the appellant had raised loans were not disclosed by the ld. AO nor any information was provided by him to the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lish that these companies from whom loans were taken to be accommodation entries. He has not even tried to verify whether these loans taken from these two companies were of Rs. 1.37 Crores and how the alleged figure of Rs. 1.37 Crore has been arrived at and he has also not disallowed interest paid by the appellant to these companies and claimed as a business expenditure. This all shows that the ld. AO was having pre conceived notion for making addition in the income of the assessee. The way which he has followed and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not valid as per law and their action deserves to be quashed. 2. It is really strange to find the argument of the ld. CIT (A) that the appellant did not try to prove that these loans were not accommodation entries. The appellant on its own had submitted confirmations, Bank statements and ITRs of lenders which amply prove all the ingredients of section 68 and the assessee has proved genuineness of the transactions. It was the onus of the department to prove that these loans were not genuine and were accommodation entries. The appellant had submitted all documents in connection with these loan transactions. If the ld. AO or the ld. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-33). The relevant para is appearing at back page of APB 31 wherein the appellant referred to this assessment of Shri Rachit Jain. The assessee had specifically asked to provide the details of accommodation entries (Name of the Entity and amount) which were never provided at any stage to the assessee. In view of this fact the assessment order of Rachit Jain is not a new piece of evidence and hence it is sincerely requested that the same may kindly be considered for deciding the case and oblige. This submission is relevant to ground no. 2(d) and 2(e) in the Appeal. 2. Very recently the appellant came across with a judgement of the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed in ITA No. 3553/Mum/2024 wherein proceedings u/s 147/148 were quashed by the Hon'ble Bench by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46). As the appellant also relied on this very judgment to argue that the second notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 28.07.2022 was issued beyond the extended time permissible (28 days from 16.06.2022) i.e. beyond 14.07.2022. This was in addition to our objection that no time limit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 148 dated 02.06.2021 23 5 Notice u/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 24 S. No. Description Page No. 1 Assessment Order u/s 147 in the case of Rachit Jain A.Y 2016-17 1-3 2 Order of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Ramchand Thakkurdads Jhamtani 4-7 SN DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1. Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal and others v/s ACIT, C.C. 2 and Others (471 ITR 45) 1-9 2. Supreme Court in the case of UOI and Others v/s Rajeev Bansal (2024 ITL 4249) 10-47 3. Rajasthan High Court in Dhadda Exports v/s ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur (377 ITR 347) 48-52 4. Rajasthan High Court in Micro Marbles P. Ltd. v/s ITO (457 ITR 569) 53-60 5. Delhi High Court in PCIT - 6 v/s Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd. (2017 ITL 1010) 61-70 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the return of income so filed by the assessee was proceeds as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act accepting income as returned by the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 02.06.2021 which was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agarwal The original notice dated 02.06.2021, though issued under old Section 148, stood converted into a deemed notice under Section 148A(b) as per SC judgment in Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). Following CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022, the AO duly issued: Section 148A(b) notice (via letter dated 01.06.2022), Passed speaking order u/s 148A(d) on 28.07.2022, Issued fresh notice u/s 148 with proper sanction. 2.2 Section 149(1)(b)- Condition of Escapement Represented in Form of 'Asset' Satisfied Section 149 Explanation defines "asser" to include "loans and advances." The Insight Portal flagged the assessee for accommodation entries of Rs.1.37 crore, categorized as bogus unsecured loans clearly falling within the meaning of "loans and advances" as asset. Hence, both criteria of Section 149(1)(b) are satisfied: Income escaped > Rs.50 lakhs, Escapement represented in form of loan. 3. Section 151 Compliance - Proper Sanction Obtained The fresh notice issued on 28.07.2022 was issued within prescribed limitation and with approval of PCIT, as per a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t can be added u/s 68, not merely the peak. Relied on: PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) Pr. CIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 138 taxmann.com 499 (SC) 7. Misplaced Reliance on Abhisar Buildwell (SC) Inapplicable The assessee's claim that reassessment under Section 147 is barred due to Abhisar Buildwell v. PCIT (SC) is wholly misplaced. Abhisar Buildwell dealt with Section 153A/153C, ie., search assessments, and held that additions unrelated to incriminating material found in search are invalid. The present case arises under Section 147, based on external flagged information (Insight Portal), not a search under Section 132. Hence, Abhisar Buildwell has no applicability in reassessment under Section 147/148. 8. Set-Off of Unabsorbed Depreciation & MAT Credit - Not Admissible under Section 115BBE From AY 2017-18 onward, as per amended Section 115BBE(2), no deduction or set-off of any loss (including unabsorbed depreciation or MAT credit) is permissible against income deemed under Sections 68 to 69D. The argument that unabsorbed depreciation is not a "loss" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing on 08.07.2025, the Department placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 7 SCC 748], wherein it was held that procedural irregularities that do not affect jurisdiction or cause prejudice to the taxpayer do not invalidate substantive legal proceedings. The assessee has failed to file any counter or rebuttal to the applicability of this judgment. This omission is significant as the principle laid down in Deepak Agro is squarely applicable to the present case, where all jurisdictional requirements were fulfilled and the assessee was duly granted opportunity under Section 148A(b). IV. Prayer In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that: 1. The reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 read with 147 may kindly be upheld as valid and within limitation: 2. The assessee's admission regarding applicability of peak credit method may be treated as confirmation of income escapement on merits; 3. Alternatively, and without prejudice, in the event of an adverse procedural finding. the Revenue may be granted liberty to initiate fresh pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow from the fiction. East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed: "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it."] Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 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 issua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The clock started ticking only after Revenue received the response of the Assesses to the show causes notices on 13/06/2022. Once the clock started ticking, the Assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit of 28 days which expired on 11/07/2022. Since notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28/07/2022 which fell beyond the surviving time limit that expired on 11/07/2022, the said notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is time barred and therefore, bad in law. Therefore, notice, dated 28/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act (new regime), the consequential reassessment proceedings and the Assessment Order, dated 11.05.2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed. 10 Even if the argument of the revenue is accepted that the since the time limit for issuance of notice was not expired in this case being A. Y. 2017-18 the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 28.07.2022 [ as is issued after 3 years ] required sanction of the PCCIT but the same is issued with the sanction of PCIT-2,Jaipur and thus, notice issued u/s.148 after lapse of 3 years is bad in law, since the same has been issued without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he end of the relevant assessment year Joint Commissioner Section 151(1) of the old regime After expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner Section 151(i) of the new regime Three years or less than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director Section 151(ii) of the new regime More than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or. Chief Commissioner or Director General 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer could not comply with the preconditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under. Section 151(1) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 which also in specific terms mentions that the authority specified u/s.151 (i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30.06.2021. Thus, while concluding in para 81 on the issue obtaining approval, Hon'ble Court has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer is 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) or issuing a notice u/s.148. According to the Hon'ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. 8.2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the Id. Sr. DR 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&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal (supra), we hold that sanction by specified authority has not been obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions contained in section 151 of the Act under the new regime, since notice u/s.148 has been issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Accordingly, the said notice issued is invalid and thus quashed. Resultantly, the impugned re-opening proceedings so initiated and the impugned re-assessment order passed thereafter are also quashed. Since the facts of the present case of the assessee is similar to the case that has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai wherein the bench has in detailed examined the issue and held that the since the approval was not properly obtained and that being the case of the present assessee. Thus, on being consistent with the above order which has been passed considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Ranjeev Bansal (Supra) and Ashish Agarwal (Supra) we quash the notice issued u/s. 148 as bad in law and thereby the consequential assessment as bad in law and thereby quash the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax, Investigation, by itself is sufficient for reopening the proceedings, more particularly when the said information was confirmed from other sources. Again the sufficiency of the information is not in question, nor its confirmation. What is questionable is the effect of its non-supply, to which there is no answer. 31. Thus, in the light of the decisions of the Delhi and the Bombay High Courts, as referred to above, the non-supply of the material, especially the documents of entry in the books of M/s Sanmatri Gems Pvt. Ltd. and the statement of Deepak Jain recorded under section 132 (4) of the Act, is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. 32. It may be noted that the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making the assessment only if such statement is made in context with other evidence, or material discovered during search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger the assessment. 33. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that shorn of all other technical aspe....