TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,90,000/- u/s 69A without considering the submission made by the assessee appellant. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an agriculturist, expired on 15.10.2019 and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. As per information received from DIT (I&CI) Jaipur vide letter no. DIT(I&CI)/ITO(I&CI)-Kota/2018-19/3038 dated 10.01.2019, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 16,90,000/- in his bank account no. 913030046994758 on 24.11.2015 opened with Axis Bank, Baran. Consequently, after getting prior permission from the Principal CIT, Kota, information under section 133(6) was called for from the bank. On perusal of the bank account statements, it was found that the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 16,90,000/- in his bank account on 24.11.2015 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, the AO had reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 16,90,000/- escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for the AY 2016-17 in the light of the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the grounds mentioned herein above. 4. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee submitted his written submission as under :- "1. That assessee appellant is deceased and preferred the instant appeal through his legal heir Smt. Deepika Nagar. That Ld. CIT(A) passed the exparte order dated 23.10.2024 ignoring the submission submit by the assessee appellant. 2. That assessee appellant had filed the written submission on 04.10.2024 before the ld. CIT(A). Copy of acknowledgement is enclosed herewith. That ld. CIT(A) without considering the submission dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide ex-parte order dated 23.10.2024. 3. That notice u/s 148A(d) & the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 23.05.2022was issued after taking sanction from the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 1, Jaipur u/s. 151(i) of the Act, whereas after amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, since more than 3 years had elapsed for the matters pertaining to A.Y. 2016-2017, the sanction had to be obtained u/s. 151(ii) of the Act from the ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur.The notice dated 25.07.2022 is thus bad in law in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neficial 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 the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus : (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022;129 c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b)." Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(i) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the assessment was reopened after elapsing of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore the approval of either of specified authorities as specified in sub clause (ii) of section 151 was required to be taken, which admittedly has not been taken but the approval dated 28.07.2022 for issuing the notice u/s 148A of the Act infact had taken from the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, which cannot be termed as valid/legal approval. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and in consequence to the said notice, the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, is quashed being void-ab-initio. Decided in favour of assessee. 3.2 Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Raziulla Syed v. ITO[2025] 3 TMI 651 dated 11.03.2025 after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: Reopening of assessment - validity of notice issued u/sec.148 Mandation to get approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General. HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been obtained by authority specified u/s 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime. \The non-compliance by the AO with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) of the new regime affects the jurisdiction of the AO to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the order, dated 30/07/2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the consequential reassessment proceedings and the order, dated 25/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed as bad in law being violative of the provisions contained in Section 148A(d), Section 148 and Section 151(ii) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. 3.4 Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Keshri Rice Industries v. DCIT [ITA: 410/RPR/2024] dated 23.12.2024 after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: 19. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements placed before us in support of the contentions. As per facts of the present case, the first notice u/s 148 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of extended life limit under TOLA and had proceeded for reopening assessment under the provisions of new regime. We, thus, are unable to persuade and concur with the response of the Ld. AO as per their report dated 12.12.2024. 20. Under such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned assessment order framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Ld. AO is liable to be struck down, being invalid for the want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on account of sanction u/s 151 by an authority, who is not vested with jurisdiction to grant such approval or other than the specified authority under clause (ii) of section 151(new regime). Consequently, the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023, stands quashed. 3.5 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT v. Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2025] 1 TMI 326 after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: Validity of reassessment proceedings - non-compliance of taking prior approval by the specified authority required u/s. 151 - Scope of "by whom" in procedural com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued on 29.07.2022 after obtaining the prior approval accorded by the of PCIT-27, Mumbai on 27.07.2022 of the said notice vide reference no. pr.CIT-27/148A(d) Approval/2022-23. Three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year 2017-18 on 31.03.2021. According to section 151(ii) of the Act, under new regime, the approval should have been obtained either from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as specified authority which is not so obtained in the case in hand. We accordingly hold that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is invalid hence the consequent assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is quashed -Assessee's appeal is allowed. 3.7 Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Manoj Rajput v. DCIT [ITA No. 360/RPR/2023] dated 22.10.2024after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: 15. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation concur with the Ld. AR that in the present case before us for A.Y.2017-18, wherein notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2022, i.e. beyond a period of three years from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply with the specific requirements of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Since the notices were issued under the new regime but lacked the necessary approval from the appropriate authority, the sanction process stands invalid. As a result, the notices under Section 148 are deemed to have no legal foundation. In light of this, the assessment orders passed by the Ld. AO under Sections 148/143(3) are quashed. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural compliance, particularly regarding approval from the correct authority, is a fundamental requirement under the Act 3.9 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT v. Manish Financials [ITA 5055/Mum/2024] dated 02.12.2024 after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: "14. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case for AY 2016-17 pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal, the AO passed an order under section 148(d) of the Act and issued a notice under section 148 on 30.07.2022. From the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the though th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Income Tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under Section 148, 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.^163 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 proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30 June 2021. 109.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction, 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 defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under Section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017- 2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 notice should be considered as non est as it was issued after the notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued. However, he also submitted that the proceedings pursuant to the second section 148 notice would continue as in terms of Section 153A of the Act, all proceedings, which stood abated on account of commencement of proceedings would stand automatically revived, if the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act were dropped. Although, Mr Gupta contended that his submissions are in the alternative, we are not persuaded to accept that the Revenue can be permitted to take alternate stands. The impugned order states in unambiguous terms that the abated proceedings under Section 148 of the Act are revived. However, the said proceedings were ex-facie illegal as initiation of the same would amount to initiating parallel assessment proceedings, which is impermissible. 15. Mr Gupta also submitted that the second Section 148 notice was not beyond the period of limitation as the period of limitation was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17) and the Section 148 of the Act notice was issued one year prior to the expiry of the limitation period. Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. As noted above, the Assessee had responded to the first section 148 notice (which was required to be construed as a notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act) on 07.06.2022 and therefore the order under Section 148A (d) of the Act and the second notice under Section 148A of the Act was required to be issued within the period of seven days thereafter. In the present case the second 148 notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The said issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.: Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:547-DB. 18. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to examine the question as to whether the notice issued has been approved by the competent authority as stipulated under Section 151 of the Act or whether the second section 148 notice was valid. 19. The impugned order holding that the said proceedings would continue is set aside. The proceedings commenced pursuant to the second section 148 notice are also set aside. 4.3 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO v. Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain(2025) 3 TMI 454 order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 149 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022 is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed. 4.4 Hon'ble ITAT, Patna Bench in the case of GD Mother Educational Society v. PCIT (2024) 11 TMI 1029 order dated 20.11.2024 after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra)has held: In the meantime the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered the judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal and Others dated 03.10.2024 (supra), wherein it was held that "the time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1st April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the Assessing Officers to the assessee in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and the period of two weeks was to be allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notices". Thereafter in terms of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of limitation so available would stand extended to 7 days; ● the A.O could have validly issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act (under the new regime) latest by 13.06.2022; 24. As the A.O in the present case had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022 i.e. much subsequent to lapse of the period of limitation as was available with him upto 13.06.2022, therefore, as stated by the Ld. AR (subject to correction of the date by the Ld. AR as 16.06.2022), and rightly so, the same is found to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.04.2013 in absence of a valid notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and, is quashed. 25. As we have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and dealing with the other contentions, based on which, the impugned addition has been assailed before us which, thus, are left open. 4.6 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Ashok Amratlal Shah v. ITO [ITA 4286/Mum/2024] orderdated 31.12.2024 after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), thus, the same is left open. Assessment for the want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO quashed, therefore, the issues raised by the revenue become infructuous, accordingly, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. We hope that it shall be to your entire satisfaction and shall enable to drop the impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and consequential assessment proceedings. We thus see no logic in issuing the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. The Hon'ble Court has remitted the matter to decide the preliminary objection with regards to maintainability of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Kindly do the needful and oblige." 4.1 The ld. AR of the assessee further filed the sequence of events took place which is being reproduced as under :- S.No. Date Remarks Page No. 01 15.10.2019 Assessee, Shri Jitendra Kumar Nagar who was an agriculturist expired. 30 (PB) 02 24.06.2021 Notice u/s 148 issued to the deceased assessee through Legal Heir for AY 2016-17 25 (PB) 03 04.05.2022 Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 5 TMI 240 04. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssak Mulla v. International Tax 2025 (2) TMI 444 (ITAT Mumbai) 57-60 8. Manoj Rajput v. DCIT2024 (10) TMI 1652 (ITAT Raipur) 61-71 9. Ashok Amratlal Shah v. ITO (ITA 4287/Mum/2024)(ITAT Mumbai) 72-84 10. ACIT v. Manish Financials 2024 (12) TMI 1539 (ITAT Mumbai) 85-90 NOTICE NOT ISSUED WITHIN SURVIVING TIME PERIOD AS PER RAJEEV BANSAL 11. Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT 2025 (4) TMI 295 (Delhi High Court) 91-93 12. ITO v. Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain 2025 (3) TMI 454 (ITAT Mumbai) 94-100 13. GD Mother Educational Society v. PCIT (2024) 11 TMI 1029 (ITAT Patna) 101-105 14. Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar v. ITO 2025(2) TMI 865 (ITAT Raipur 106-113 15. DCIT v. Vinal Agrawal 2025 (2) TMI 891 (ITAT Raipur) 114-123 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted the report of the ITO Ward Baran dated 05.05.2025 as under :- "Kindly refer to your office letter no. Addl.CIT (Sr.DR.-III/ITAT/JPR/2025- 26/143 dated 24.04.2025 on the above mentioned subject. In this regard, the point-wise comments on the written submission of 21 pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27th April, 2021 under old law after taking prior approval from the competent authority as per section 151(2) of the IT Act from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Kota vide his office letter No. 631 dated 23.06.2021 and accordingly notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act to the assessee on 24.06.2021. Relevant section 151(2) of the IT Act of old law and notifications are as under :- "[151. Sanction for issue of notice. - (1) No notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection (1) of section 3 of the said Act relates to intimation of Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Income-tax Act, the time-limit for compliance of such action shall stand extended to the 30th day of June, 2021. (B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act) and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act relates to sending an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 168 of the Finance Act, - (i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the time limit, specifiedin, or prescribed or notified under, the Finance Act falls for the completion of such action; and (ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand extended. [Notification No. 20/2021/F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL] SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy., Tax Policy and Legislation Division Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27th April, 2021 "Central Government has specified for the purpose of sub-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC Online SC 543) (Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal) - Instruction regarding 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court. vide its judgment dated 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC Online SC 543), in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal has adjudicated on the validity of the issue of reassessment notices issued by the Assessing 0fficers during the period beginning on 1st April, 2021 and ending with 30th June 2021, within the time extended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as "TOLA"] and various notifications issued thereunder (these reassessment notices hereinafter referred to as "extended reassessment notices"). 2. These extended reassessment notices were issued by the Assessing Officers under the provision of section 148 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") following the procedure prescribed under various sections pertaining to reassessment namely sections 147 to 151, as they existed prior to their amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "old law"). With effect from 1 April 2021, the old law has been substitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year. Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (12) of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: * Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the views of High Courts that the benefit of new law shall be made available even in respect of proceedings relating to past assessment years. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court read with the time extension provided by TOLA will allow extended reassessment notices to travel back in time to their original date when such notices were to be issued and then new section 149 of the Act is to be applied at that point. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew law prior to that show cause notice shall be deemed to have been complied with. * The assessing Officer shall exclude cases as per clarification in paragraph 7.1 above. * Within 30 days i.e. by 2nd June 2022, the Assessing Officer shall provide to the assessee's, in remaining cases, the information and material relied upon for issuance of extended reassessment notices. * The assessee has two weeks to reply as to why a notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued, on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year. The time period of two weeks shall be counted from the date of last communication of information and material by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. * In view of the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the defences of the new law are available to the assessee, if assessee makes a request by making an application that more time be given to him to file reply to the show cause notice, then such a request shall be considered by the Assessing Officer on merit and time may be extended by the Assessing Officer as provided in cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year." Hence, vide above judgment dated 04.05.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 during the period beginning on 1st April, 2021 and ending with 30th June, 2021, within the time extended by the Taxation and other Laws Act, 2021 (TOLA) shall be deemed to be the show cause notices issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the new law land has directed Assessing Officers to follow the procedure with respect to lsuch notices. It is also clarified that this judgment applies to all cases where extended reassessment notices have been issued. This is irrespective of the fact whether such notices have been challenged or not. It is also clarified in para 6.1 that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (12) of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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(i) 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." In the above para Hon'ble Court has clearly mentioned that 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, in compliance of above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 04.05.2022 and CBDT issued instruction no. 01/2022 vide F.No. 279/Misc./M-51/2022-ITJ Dated 11.05.2022 and as per para 6.2(ii) of the CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022, necessary approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was taken u/s 51(i) of the IT Act of the new law from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vide his office letter No. 1670 dated 23.07.2022 and issue notice u/s 148 of the IT Act on 25.07.2022 and order u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act in consequence to Hon'ble SC order dated 04./05.2022. Hence, it cannot be say that notice dated 25.07.2022 is bad in law in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 92024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), before passing order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 dated25.07.2022 all compliance was made and follow instruction issued by the CBDT vide Instruc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the month in which the reply is received by him from the assessee. In case no such reply is furnished by the assessee, then the order is required to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply expires. * If it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice under section 148 after obtaining the approval of the specified authority under section 151 of the new law. The copy of the order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act shall also be served with the notice u/s 148." Therefore, in compliance of the instruction as mentioned above notice u/s 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 23.05.2022 along with relevant information and material relied upon for initiating reassessment proceedings and the assessee was given a show cause as to why cash deposited of Rs. 16,90,000/- on 24.11.2015 in bank a/c no. 913030046994758 of AXIS Bank, Baran should not be treated undisclosed cash credit in bank account and order u/s 148A(d) may not be passed in his case. But the assessee has not furnished the response to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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." It is the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Supreme Court did not waive the requirement of section 148A(d) and section 148 and the AO was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime. Section 151 of the New regime is as under :- [Sanction for issue of notice. 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,- (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (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.] Therefore, under new regime the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 after expiry of three years w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 set up under section 151. Hence in this judgment also the Hon`ble Delhi High Court opined that sanction for notice u/s 148 was required to be taken from authority specified under amended section 151 as per time gap existing between the assessment year and time of issue of notice. Further, very recently in a judgment decided by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in ITA No. 1320/JPR/2024 in the case of RSD Containers Private Limited v/s ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur the issue of sanction in cases wherein as per order of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessee's from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below: Regime Time limits Specified authority Section 151(2) of the old regime Before expiry of four years from the 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(il) of the new regime More than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year Chief Principal Commissioner or Principal Director General or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limita prescribed under Section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s. 151 of the new regime. This abundantly brings clarity on the aspect of obtaining approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 which are fall out of the decision in Ashish Agrawal (supra). In para 77, objective of section 3(1) of TOLA is mentioned which is to relax the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021. Thus, the objective is specific for providing temporalflexibility. In para 78, the same has been explained by an example taking Assessment Year 2017-18 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 requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded law whereby the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Contrary to this requirement, the approval obtained is by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai. Accordingly, since a proper sanction by the specified authority had not been obtained for issue of notice u/s. 148 under the applicable provisions of law, said notice is invalid and bad in law. 8.4. Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and the uncontroverted facts as stated above and the judicial precedent 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." In the c....