TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that Ground No.2 in the cross objection which is on the issue of limitation as assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 3 years without there being any evidence in possession of the Assessing Officer represented in the form of asset which reveal that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He submitted that as per the provision of section 149(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, no reassessment can be reopened after a period 3 years without there being any evidence in possession of the Assessing Officer represented in the form of asset which reveal that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us key dates as under and submitted that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.11.2022 is barred by limitation and, therefore, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed as AY 2015-16 is otherwise time barred in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal 2024 (10) TMI 264:- Dates Notice/Order 31.03.2021 Notice u/s 148 of the Act (old regime) 13.10.2022 Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act 26.11.2022 Response filed by the assessee to notice is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 7. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities below. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that before Hon'ble Supreme Court, Revenue had conceded that for AY 2015-16, all the appeals have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA, 2020. Based on the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are inclined to agree with the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee. Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2015-16 filed by the assessee is allowed. 9. Since the cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed, the Department's appeal for AY 2015-16 is also dismissed as infructuous. 10. Now we take up cross objections filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14. 11. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee pressed Ground No.2 of cross objections which read as under :- "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: 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" 13. Further ld. AR submitted that thus, for an assessment to be reopened after a period of three years, not only the income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000 should have escaped assessment, but it should be represented in the form of asset. Further explanation to section 149(1) has defined asset to include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposit in bank account. He submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the issue is not that of the any asset. It is a disallowance of the expenditure. Since expenditure is not covered within the limitation prescribed and it does not fall within the meaning of the asset, the assessment cannot be reopened after 3 years. In this case, assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 01.04.2021 which is beyond 3 years from assessment year 2013-14 and hence the present assessment is barred by limitation. 14. In thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion period u/s 149(1)(b) read with the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act cannot be invoked and the relevant part of the order is reproduced as under :- "16. It is apparent from the above that the AO believed that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment for AY 2016-17 on essentially three grounds. First, that the petitioner had deducted expenses relating to amounts paid to certain persons who had not filed their income tax returns and the AO thus doubted the genuineness of the said transactions. Second, that the petitioner had booked expenses, which according to the AO, were personal expenses of its directors and had not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the petitioner's business. And third, that the petitioner had paid certain amounts as expenses for availing contractual manpower services and the AO doubted the genuineness of the said payments. 17. It is clear from the above that there is no allegation that the income which has escaped assessment was represented in the form of an asset. Therefore, the conditions as stipulated in Clause (a) of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Act are not satisfied. The AO....