TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/07/2022 under section 148 of the Act, which is bad in law and without jurisdiction and is merely based on external information with which the Appellant has no nexus, it can be construed as change of opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in relying on the third-party statements recorded during the survey action under section under section 133A of the Act, carried out in the case of JM Financial Asset Management Limited, for reopening a concluded assessment, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, beyond the limitation period which is bad in law, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in taking approval while issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, from the Honorable Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax 1, Hyderabad, even when the case is beyond the three years, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Whether the learned Authorities below (i.e.) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48 on 29.07.2022 is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that since the original notice u/sec.148 was issued by the Assessing Officer on 30.06.2021, therefore, the number of days available to the Assessing Officer for issuing the final notice under the new Scheme of Re-Assessment was zero as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). The period as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India And Ors., vs. Ashish Agrawal (supra) has to be excluded up-to the date of the said Judgment i.e., 04.05.2022. Consequently, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) on 25.05.2022 granting the time to assessee to file the reply upto 05.06.2022. The assessee did not file any reply in response to the show cause notice issued u/sec.148A(b). Therefore, since there was a zero surviving period with the Assessing Officer due to the reason that original notice u/sec.148 was issued on 30.06.2021 the last day of the limitation extended by TOLA Notification, therefore, the minimum period available as per the Judgment of Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Balance (On inclusive method) C = A-B 0 Minimum days available as per 4th proviso of section 149[1] of the Act D 7 Then surviving period (Para 108 to 113 of Rajeev Bansal) E = Higher of C & D 7 Due date of response to be filed by the Appellant to notice under section 148A[b] of the Act. F 07.06.2022 Date on which period of two weeks allowed G to assessee to respond to notice ends [deemed stay as per 3rd proviso to section 149 and para 114[g] of Rajeev Bansal] G 07.06.2022 Last date for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act (i.e.) H = G+E 14.06.2022 Actual date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. I 29.07.2022 Actual date of service of notice through mail. J 29.07.2022 Then the notice is barred by [para 114(h) of Rajeev Bansal. K = H-J 45 6. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued u/sec.148 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is invalid and liable to be quashed and consequently, the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is also liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act and to consider the reply of the assessee and pass the order u/sec.148A(d) of the Act and then issue the final notice u/sec.148 which is duly followed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the proceedings completed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are valid. 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. In the case of the assessee, the original assessment order u/sec.143(3) was passed on 29.12.2018 and thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 30.06.2021 placed at page-45 of the paper book as under : 9. Since the notice was issued after 01st April, 2021, therefore, the notice ought to have been issued as per the new scheme of re-assessment under the Amended Provisions of Sec.148 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), has treated the notice issued under the old provisions of the Act as deemed notice issued u/sec.148A(b) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file objections/reply to the said show cause notice and thereafter, by following the procedures a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act read with TOLA. This construction gives full effect to the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and enables both the assesses and the Revenue to obtain the benefit of all consequences flowing from the fiction. See State of A P v. A P Pensioners Association [2005] 13 SCC 161. [This Court observed that the "legal fiction undoubtedly is to be construed in such a manner so as to enable a person, for whose benefit such legal fiction has been created, to obtain all consequences flowing therefrom."] 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply in the case of the assessee after allowing the 14 days/2 weeks as per third proviso to sec.149 comes to 07.06.2022 because the Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) on 25.05.2022. The minimum 7 days available with the Assessing Officer as per 4th proviso to sec.149(1) is added to this time limit for issue of notice u/sec.148 would be extended up-to 14.06.2022. However, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148 on 29.07.2022 which is beyond the surviving period and time limit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), has finally concluded in Para Nos.113 and 114 as under : "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 prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;" 11. Thus, after 01.04.2021 the Income Tax Act has to be read along with substituted provisions including application of TOLA if action or proceedings specified under the substituted provisions of the Act falls for completion between March, 2020 and 31.03.2021. In the case of the assessee, there is no dispute that the time limit for issuing the notice u/sec.148 was expired within this period. It is specifically concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Assessing Officer required to issue re-assessment notice u/sec.148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Act read with TOLA and the notice issued beyond the surviving period is time barred and liable to be set-aside. Therefore, the notice issued beyond the surviving period is time barred and liable to be set-aside. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the Delhi High Court quashed the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings. Since the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 is a settled law, it is binding on this Court. I am therefore unable to take a contra view in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC On Line SC 2693. 18. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 12. Thus, by following Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that notice issued u/sec.148 beyond the surviving period is invalid and liable to be set-aside. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwant Singh vs. Union of India (supra) while disposing of batch of 152 writ petitions vide Judgment dated 19.10.2024 has held In Paras-7 and 8 as under : "7. While examining the cases, the example a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 148A(b) of the Act, was also required to be excluded. The Supreme Court reasoned that the AO could not proceed further till the said material was supplied. Therefore, the said period is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 64. It is material to note that the Supreme Court had also explained that provision of TOLA would be applicable to notices which were subject matter of challenge in Ashish Agarwal (supra) Analysis - in the factual context 65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 under the statutory framework, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 66. By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 were extended till 30.06.20212. Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to account that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act necessarily required to be completed within the period available for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the time available to the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was necessarily truncated and the same was required to be passed on or before 12.07.2022. The fourth proviso to Section 149 of the Act did not come into play as the time period available for the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was in excess of the seven days. 72. In view of the above, we find merit in Mr. Sehgal's contention that the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of limitation. 73. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act; the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act; and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 framed under Section 147 of the Act pursuant to the notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14, are set aside. Pending application is also disposed of." 15. In the case in hand, the period of 03 years l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee years has lapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 29.07.2022. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act which is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, whereas the approval has been obtained from Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Hyderabad, as stated in the notice under section 148 of the Act, itself. He, therefore, submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act, for the assessment year 2016-2017 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the Appropriate Authority is invalid and consequently the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act is also liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon the following decisions : a. UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal (SC) 167 taxmann.com 70; b. Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, CWP No. 4061 of 2024, dated 25/09/2025; c. Prakash Pandurang Patil Vs. ITO WP No. 10749 of 2024, dated 12/08/2024; The SLP filed by the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is evident from subsequent notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 where the Assessing Officer in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Ashish Agarwal (supra), has considered the earlier notice issued u/sec.148, as fresh notice in light of provisions of sec.148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the validity of notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act, after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax [International Taxation]-2, Mumbai accorded on 25.07.2022. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act, after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax [International Taxation]-2, Mumbai, dated 25.07.2022, but, as per the amended provisions of sec.151(ii) of the Act, the Competent Authority for granting sanction u/sec.151(ii) of the Act, in a case where the assessment has been reopened after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is Pr. CCIT or Pr. Director General of Income Tax, but, not CIT as considered by the learned Assessing Officer. This legal principle is supported by the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) and finally reassessment notice u/sec.148 was issued to the assessee on 30.07.2022 after approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad dated 27.07.2022. As per the provisions of sec.151(ii) of the Act, if the reopening of the assessment is after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, then the Specified Authority for grant of approval is Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Director General of Income Tax and this legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has analysed the issue in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), relevant Circulars/Notifications issued by CBDT and provisions of Taxation and Other Laws Amendment Act, 2021 [in short "TOLA"] and after considering relevant facts held that after 01.04.2021, the New Regime has specified different authorities for granting sanction u/sec.151(ii) of the Act and in case the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Manish Jagdish Joshi vs. CIT ITA.No.1617/Mum./2024 and the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held as under : "We find that while considering the similar issue and similar submissions the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held that TOLA would not affect the scope of section 151 and sanction of Specified Authority was to be obtained in accordance with the law existing when the sanction was obtained. It was further held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice beyond the period of three years, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we find no merits in the reliance placed by the Revenue on the provisions of TOLA. As, in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied 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 one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under section 151. The new regime is beneficial 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 au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval. 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 year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry, if required, with 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 notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/sec.148A(a) and 148A(b) of the Act was waived-off by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), however, the same did not waive-off the requirement of obtaining prior approval for the order u/sec.148A(d) and the re-assessment notice u/sec.148 of the Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, [INT. TAXN]-1, Hyderabad (supra), we hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act in the case of the assessee is not valid for want of a valid approval/ sanction u/sec.151 of the Act and consequently, the same is quashed. Once the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act is quashed being invalid, the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He submitted that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29.07.2022 and the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29.07.2022 i.e., after the "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022". In support of his contentions, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. ITO 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana-HC), dated 14.09.2023 and accordingly submitted that the notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Act, and notice under section 148 of the Act, issued by the learned JAO is in violation of the new scheme of the Finance Act, 2021, is invalid and consequential assessment order is also bad in law. In the alternative, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has fairly submitted that the parties may be given liberty to get this appeal revived as per the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. 26. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue has submitted that the issue of validity of notice issued u/sec.148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short "JAO"] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is not valid and liable to be set aside. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, at the outset we note that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (supra) [As per Corrigendum dated 10th October, 2025 the correct citation is Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar vs., The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar in ITA.No.1259/Hyd./2024] has considered an identical issue vide order dated 04.09.2025 in para Nos.9 to 16 as under : "9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as material on record. In the case of the assessee, notice u/sec.148A(b) was issued on 21.02.2023 by JAO. For ready reference, the same is reproduced as under : 10. Thereafter, the AO also passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequently notice u/s 148 was is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5)", Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA", Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions" 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. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (Μ.Α.Τ 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024." 13. In light of various judgements of the Hon'ble High Courts, including the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer [2024] 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati), the Hon'ble High Court has held in para 13 to 19 as under: "13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself and should have found out via media in ensuring that proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148 should not have been issued in n faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Saraf¹ as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, wherein the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not "accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that till the same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.", the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese 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 on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in law, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred in the proceedings Initiated u/s 147 of the Act without following due procedure prescribed by CBDT vide Instruction No F.No.299/ 10/2022-Dir(Inv.1)/647 dt., 22.08.2022 and accordingly the said proceedings and the consequent order ought to be declared null and void ab initio." 15. In view of the facts emanating from the record, we find that the assessee has duly raised this issue before the CIT(A) and therefore, the contention raised by the Ld.DR is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) dated 21.02.2023 as well as notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2023 by the JAO are not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 16. However, since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court has also given the liberty to the parties to move an appropriate petition, seeking revival of W.P. in light of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this very issue, we also grant liberty to the parties to get this appeal revived, if, in case the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitate to modify this order." 5.1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bills and documentary evidences produced by the Appellant, to sustain the disallowance of an amount being Rs. 2,41,50,975/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 6. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity." 31. The assessee has filed it's return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 on 10.01.2021 admitting total income at Rs. 5,32,29,560/-. The assessee has sold the land and also invested in the residential property to claim deduction u/sec.54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 4,82,58,378/-. The Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of the assessee to Rs. 2,41,07,403/- for want of supporting bills and documentary evidences. He challenged the Order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A), but, could not succeed. 32. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee filed all the relevant details and supporting documents vide ack....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to produce the requisite documentary evidence for the development cost, thereby making the claimed expenditure unverifiable, Hence, the AO's action to disallow the portion of exemption proportionate to the unverifiable development cost is justified and in accordance with law. 7. Decision : The appellant's claim of exemption under section 54F is allowed to the extent of Rs. 4,99,27,937/- paid to the builder as purchase price of residential house. The disallowance of exemption to the extent of Rs. 2,41,50,975/- on account of unverifiable development cost is upheld. Consequently, the addition made by AO on this issue is confirmed. Accordingly grounds of appeal no.03 & 04 are dismissed." 34. Thus, it is clear that the claim of exemption u/sec.54F was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on the ground of verifiable evidentiary proof not produced by the assessee despite repeated opportunities. It is pertinent to note that the assessee filed the relevant documents along with written submissions before the learned CIT(A) vide acknowledgment dated 15.03.2024 placed at Pages-1 and 2 of the paper book which is as under: 35. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RABAD/ (In case the document is digitally signed please refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page) Document 2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD/ To. BRIJESH CHANDWANI 67/C,MLA COLONY, ROAD NO.12 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD 500034,Telangana India PAN: A.Y: Dated: DIN & Notice No: ADKPC1537H 2016-17 29.07.2022 Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Sir/ Madam/ M/s. 1. I have the following information in your case or in the case of the person in respect of which you are assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2016-17 :- Information which requires action in consequence of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Civil Appeal 3005/2022, dated 4th May, 2022 Suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044297097(1) dated 29.07.2022 and annexed herewith f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. 1. I have the following information in your, case or in the case of the person in respect of which you are assessable under the Income tax Act, 1961(here in after referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2016-17. ₩2034 · information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated in this regard suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051563421(1) dated 29/03/2023 and annexed herewith for reference, 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the 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 Acknowledgement Number : 143939011150324 e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT PROCEEDING DETAILS PAN/TAN ADKPC1537H Name BRIJE....