2026 (1) TMI 1303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual who has filed her Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2016-17 on 01-07- 2016 showing total income of Rs. 2,22,290/- and Current year loss of Rs. 12,79,949/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment made. Information received from the "Insight Portal" of the department that the assessee has indulged in sham transaction in penny stock of the shares scrip namely M/s. Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 30,34,398/-. Therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30-07- 2022. In response th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment conducted for the past periods. The increase of the monetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakh is beneficial for the assesses. Mr Venkataraman has also conceded on behalf of the Revenue that all notices issued under the new regime by invoking the six year time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs. Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. Thus, although TOLA did not amend Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, it has to be read w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und of Appeal No. 2 Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts stating in order u/s 250 that the assessee has not tried to bring into light the source of such investment and thus the source of such amount has remained unexplained. Thus the addition of Rs. 7,02,171/- out of addition of Rs. 31,55,767/- made by the Ld. A.O is sustained. With respect to the sustained addition amounting Rs. 7,02,171/-, the hon'ble CIT(A) did not raise any specific query or request any further details in relation to the investment amount and sustained the addition amounting Rs. 7,02,171/- without any valid basis. Therefore, the sustained addition amounting Rs. 7,02,171/- is basel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 149 of the Act and is legally unsustainable. 7.1 Invalid sanction from incorrect authority u/s. 151(ii) of the Act. As the notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) were issued on 30.07.2022 which are well beyond three years from the end of the A.Y. 2016-17 (i.e. 31.03.2020). In such cases the sanction was mandatorily required from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) as per section 151(ii) of the Act. However, the AO obtained sanction only from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which is jurisdictionally defective. 7.2. On identical issue Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 457 ITR 647 wherein it ....