TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and time barred and thus assessment order passed requires to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the notice issued under section 148A(b), the order passed under section 148A(d), and the consequential notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is illegal, bad in law, time barred and without jurisdiction and thus assessment order passed requires to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative (AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee has raised legal grounds of appeal challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 as well as addition on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee while referring the notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2023, a copy of which is filed at page no.1 to 14 of the paper book, submitted that case of the assessee for AY 2016-17 was reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 7,25,000/- and Rs. 93,287/- only, hence, the income allegedly escaped from assessment was admittedly less than Rupee fifty lacks. Thus, no notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 could be issued on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer despite taking all such details on record disregarded the reply of assessee. The Assessing Officer held in absence of sale deed of property it cannot be established that payments to seller was paid by other family members. However, while passing the assessment order, Assessing Officer accepted the same explanation and no addition was made in respect of payment made through bank account of her husband. The ld. AR of the assessee also explained the source of additions of Rs. 7.25 Lakhs from the entry in her bank accounts, copy of which is placed on record. In support of legal issue, the ld AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws; * Shri Malkiat Singh vs ITO in ITA No.4366/Del/2025 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y her husband Shri Krishnan Subramanium in two assessment years i.e. for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. Such purchase was made to secure family future by her husband, copy of bank statement, bank account, cheque number and date of payment were furnished. The assessee stated that Rs. 62.00 lakhs was paid by her husband and remaining amount was paid by her from the past saving and gift received from close relatives. The assessee also explained about sale of equity share of SBI, wherein, the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 40. The assessee also sold futures of Rs. 13.70 lakhs, wherein, the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 32,912/- and the bank statement along with return of income was also furnished. Thus, the assessee clearly explained the facts that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I find that Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal Ms. Sonali Dharmendra Mhatre vs ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 699 while considering the similar set of facts that when Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 about time deposit / cash deposit of Rs. 90.64 lakhs had escapement, later on while passing the assessment order accepted the investment in time deposit and no addition in assessment was made, however made additions on account of variation qua unexplained money wherein amount did not exceed of Rs. 50 lakhs, the notice under section 148 after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment was held time barred. I also find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sonash Creations Private Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) also held that if the t....