TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order on 30.05.2023 the Ld. AO has given very short time to reply SCN of 2 days for such huge addition of Rs. 440,00,38,962/- further the Ld A.O. has changed his stance for making addition in two show cause notice first he asked to make addition for sales and next he asked to make addition on purchase. The Ld. AO has completed the assessment on 30.05.2023 in very hurriedly manner and giving very short opportunity to appellant to reply SCN, further due to which assessee unable to submit all details and evidence, even though the time limit to passed assessment was 31.03.2024 showing in IT portal and the authorities with bias mind passed assessment order on 30.05.2023. Hence, the Ld. A.O. has not given proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principal of natural justice, and on the basis of facts and law the assessment order passed without proper opportunity is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while confirming the order u/s 148A(d) passed by the Ld. AO and notice issued u/s 148 on the basis of unexplained cash credit in appellant bank accounts and hence, it is assets falling u/s 149(1)(b) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had not maintained proper books and stock records at their locations, had diverted funds dishonestly, and had engaged in paper-based sham transactions without any real movement of goods. Based on this informations, the AO issued notices under section 133(6) to the transacting parties however, none of them appeared or furnished any evidence. The Assessing Officer made field enquiries which further established that these entities were non-existent at the addresses provided. Though the assessee relied on the fact that transactions were routed through banking channels and reflected in audited books and VAT returns, as per the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to substantiate the movement of goods by producing transportation records, delivery challans, stock registers, or confirmations from the suppliers. Considering these facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts and treated the entire purchases amounting to Rs. 440,00,38,962/- from Farriti Merchandize Pvt. Ltd., Ardor Global Pvt. Ltd., and Ardor International Pvt. Ltd. as bogus, thereby making an equivalent addition. 4. In appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the purchases were genuine, having been recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48A(b) on 27.05.2022 on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022. The assessee objected to this notice vide letter dated 17.06.2022, contending that the proceedings were barred by limitation because the notice was issued after more than three years and the case did not satisfy the definition of "asset" under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. However, ignoring these objections, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on 29.08.2022 and again issued a notice under section 148, to which the assessee filed another return on 07.01.2023 declaring the same income. The assessment was thereafter completed under section 147 read with section 144B on 30.05.2023, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on 21.03.2025. The present appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 20.05.2025. The counsel submitted that this case relates to AY 2015-16 and therefore squarely falls within the category of reassessment notices which were issued during the TOLA period. He submitted that the original notice dated 20.04.2021 was issued after 01.04.2021 and is therefore invalid in light of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra), wherein the Revenue declared that for assessment year 2015-16 all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 have to be dropped, and this position has been unequivocally applied in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (supra) which quashed a notice dated 25.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 on identical facts. It was further submitted that the deeming fiction under Ashish Agarwal (supra) cannot revive jurisdiction which never existed and that the subsequent order under section 148A(d) dated 29.08.2022, the notice under section 148 issued thereafter, and the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 30.05.2023 are all void. 9. Having considered the submissions and examined the legal position, we find that the facts of the assessee's case are squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) relaxes time limits only for actions that fell for completion between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 and expressly recorded the Re....