AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case the order of CIT(A)/NFAC is bad in law as well as on facts 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the jurisdiction of AO under section 148. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in ignoring that the AO has not followed the mandate of section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC instead of quashing the entire proceedings being void-ab-initio has erred in directing the AO to commence reassessment after the order of Customs department. 5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the entire proceedings of 148 was triggered on the basis of illegal show cause of DRI, and hence not tenable in law. 6 Without prejudice to the above the CIT(A)/NFAC, while directing the AO to commence reassessment, has erred in overlooking the limitation provided u/s 148 r.w.s. 149 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A)/NFAC is a nullity as the same was passed mentioning incorrect dates/observation/facts in the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... carried out by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the above mentioned entities. 1. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has re-determined/revised assessable value of the goods for recalculating duty evaded in the case of M/s Genesis Associated Pvt. Ltd. (AAACG4978Q) and the details of the same are as under:- FY Total value declared before customs (in Rs. Total actual assessable value of the goods (in Rs. Differential value not declared in books (in Rs. ) 2012-13 5,29,21,637 15,35,02,755 10,05,81,118 (4) Open enquiries were conducted by issuing Summons u/s 131(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to M/s Genesis Associates Pvt Ltd and other parties on 07.08.2014. Assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of trading of furniture items. During the course of enquiry and verification it is found that Assessee Company has imported PS plates and mentioned the same in bill of entry as "plates used for structure" only. Similarly, Glass chatons were described in bill of entry as 'decoration'. (5) On perusal of Income Tax Return filed by the assessee company for A.Y 2013-14, it is seen that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions undertaken by assessee during the year under consideration. In view of these circumstances, the Assessing Officer is left with no other alternatives than to treat the above-mentioned difference amount of Rs. 10,05,81,118/- being the undisclosed value of imports as unexplained purchases by imports, etc. as income of assessee company from other unknown sources. Therefore, the above sum of Rs. 10,05,81,118/-is treated as unexplained purchase expenditure of the assessee for the year under consideration under section 69C of I.T. Act. and this sum is brought to tax accordingly for the Assessment Year 2013-14." 6. Aggrieved against the order of Learned Assessing Officer the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned First Appellate Authority, who partly allowed the appeal, inter alia, by observing as under: "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant. It is observed that Revenue Intelligence (Hars.) had conducted a Search operation on the Appellant on 23/07/2013 and Show cause notice No. DRI/F, No. 500/55/2013-C.I dated 17/01/2014 was issued to the Appellant. Based on this information, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961 on 27/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard. For the sake of clarity the same is reproduced hereunder: "Written submissions and synopsis At the very outset it is submitted that case of the Assessee is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court adjudicated on the issue whether the reopening made pursuant to the judgment of in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal: (2023) 1 SCC 617 are time barred or not. The Hon'ble Court upheld the validity of TOLA and reassessments for the AY 2013-14 & 2014- 15 were held valid, with a caveat that 'surviving period' of every case has to be judged independently in view of para 112 of the said judgment. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for reference: "112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on May 1, 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 May 1, 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the Assessing Officer will have sixty-one days (days between May 1, 2021 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the date of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal is required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 67. Additionally, the period from the date of decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had issued the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. 68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022-the period of two weeks -is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the material and time allowed to the assessee to file the reply. 28.06.2021 to 29.05.2022 Time that was available/left to issue notice under section 148 as per section 149 read with TOLA 2 days (28.06.2021 to 30.06.2021) Extended time to be given as per fourth proviso to section 149(1) 7 days (29.05.2022 + 7 days i.e.. 05.06.2022 Time limit to issue notice under section 148 as per 05.06.2022 section 149 as amended by Finance Act, 2021 as per Rajeev Bansal's case 05.06.2022 (7 days from 29.05.2022) Date of notice under section 148 along with Order under Section 148A(d) (A-3+A-4) 28.06.2022* *The date may be 29.06.2022 as the DIN in respect of Notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.06.2022. (The said intimation is attached as Annexure 5) 7. It can be clearly ascertainable from the above table that the last date to issued notice under section 148 as per Finance Act, 2021 was 05.06.2022, however, same was actually issued on 28.06.2022, which makes it time barred and therefore, rendering whole of the proceedings as null and void. 8. It is therefore requested to kindly annul the assessment order passed in the case of the Asses....