AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings are equally bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground No.2: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, is not justified in dismissing the appellant's ground that sufficient funds were available and explained for the deposits in the banks. 4. The appellant reserves her right to add, amend, delete or substitute any ground or grounds during the course of hearing. Sd/- APPELLANT 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") passed for Assessment Year 2015-16 under Section 147 read with Sections 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961("the Act"), dated 01.03.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the assessee is pressing only ground no.2 of the appeal which is a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In this regards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year represents information available with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3. Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 is reproduced as under: 'No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- ............. (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts 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: ............. Explanation :- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the cash deposits and time deposit made by the assessee in bank accounts fall under the scope of "assets" within the meaning of Explanation to section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The assessee stated that she has not agreed for the deposits in Andhra Bank but did not mention anything about other two bank accounts. Hence, the reply submitted by the assessee is treated as incomplete and hence rejected. 7. Having regard to the information available which suggests that income chargeable to tax represented in the form of asset amounts to more than fifty lakh rupees has escaped assessment and on the basis of material available on record as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it is concluded that the case of SUBHADRA KUMARI MUDIGONDA (PAN: AIRPM9926C)is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP & TS, Hyderabad. VASANTHA LAKSHMI RAYABHARI WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI (In case the document is digitally signed please refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page) 8. On perusal of para no.5 of above, it is evident that the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued by JAO on 23.03.2022. It is also evident that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by JAO on 07.04.2022.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 148 of the Act have also been issued by the JAO on 07.04.2022. Hence, on perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the CBDT notification, we find that in the present case, while the notice under section 148A (b) of the Act was issued before the date of CBDT Notification, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022, i.e., after the said CBDT notification came into effect. However, in terms of the CBDT Notification, the JAO ceased to have authority to issue notice under section 148 of the Act w.e.f. 29.03.2022. It is manifest from the above that the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act as well as the passing of order under section 148A(d) of the Act were conducted by the JAO and not in the Faceless manner as prescribed by the CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022. We note that similar issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Shri Kotha Kanthaiah vs. ITO in ITA.No.1259/Hyd/2024 for the assessment year 2016-17 vide Order dated 04.09.2025 wherein the Tribunal in para nos. 9 to 16 of its order held as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER7, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA9, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions10 which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX ([(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]), on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in not following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf ([1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay)) as also the recent decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO ([2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)) of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, wherein the Court categorica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws. ... ... ... 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length. because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses-public without any benefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JAO is not valid and liable to be set-aside/quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute on the fact that the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the JAO after the date of CBDT notification. Therefore, respectfully following the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana as well as the decisions of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that, the notice issued by the JAO under section 148 of the Act, dated 07.04.2022 is not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 12. Further, we find that the issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., against the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar in WP.No.344 of 2025, dated 24.04.2025 (supra) has given the liberty to the parties to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of the petition in light of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., (supra) on this issue. Therefore, we grant liberty to the parties to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BAD , HYDERABAD 500022 , Andhra Pradesh India Resident/ Not Ordinarily Resident/ Non-Resident Date of order 07/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCCIT, AP & TELANGANA Reference No. 100000029699600 Date Order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act. 1961 In case of the assessee, specific information was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through Insight Portal under the head 'NMS cases'. As per the information received, SUBHADRA KUMARI MUDIGONDA (PAN: AIRPM9926C) has carried out following transactions during the financial year 2014- 15, relevant to the assessment year 2015-16: 1. The assessee has made Cash deposit / time deposits of in following banks - S.No. Nature Transaction of Name of the Bank Bank Account No. Amount of Deposit/Transaction Value(Rs.) 01 DEPOSITS ANDHRA BANK 60410100043075 2.30,99,336/- Name of the Bank Note If digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as dite of document INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR SBI TILAK ROAD BRANCH, K I ROAD, TIRUPATI, Andhra Pradesh, 517507 Email: TIRUPATIIT/1 3@ INCOMETAX GOV IN N- Document identification No Document 3 GOVERNMENT OF ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. LAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA CIRCLE 1,KARIMNAGAR Document 5 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Jurisdictional Assessing Oficer erred by initiating proceedings u/s 147of the Act, simply relied on the SFT information shown in the verification module of Insight Portal at the time of reopening, however, either no information gathered or not conducted any Inquiry further in order to form an honest, and a reasonable belief that certain income had escaped assessment in the case of the appelant, As such, said proceedings and the "consequent order ought to be declared null and void-ab-initio. 3. The Notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 Hated 30.03.2023 is illegal and unsustainable in law since the income alleged to have escaped assessment, actually is far below the threshold limit pl Rs250 Lacs in the present dase, it is actually Rs. 30,61,000/- only and thereby, baited by limitation under th....