TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judication. Whereas, in ground no. 3, the assessee has challenged the non-adjudication of the ground relating to the applicability of section 115BBE of the Act. Since, the issues are overlapping, we will deal with them concurrently. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 15.09.2017, declaring income of Rs. 44,15,320/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny. In course of assessment proceeding, the A.O., from time to time, called upon the assessee to furnish various information and details relation to its business. From the details furnished, more particularly the bank statement, the A.O. noticed that during the demonetization period, substantial cash deposits were found to have been made in the bank account. While verifying further, he found that there was substantial increase in the cash sales between the month of September, 2016 and March, 2017, aggregating to Rs. 68,81,327/-. Thus, he called upon the assessee to explain why the cash sales reported during the demonetization period should not be treated as non-genuine. Though the assessee object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax rate in terms with section 115BB of the Act as such special tax rate is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and assessment year A.Y. 2018-19 onwards. In support of his contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: * Harisons Diamonds (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 669 (Delhi-Trib.) * CIT vs. Uttaranchal Welfare Society [2014] 42 taxmann.com 361 (Allahabad) * Ms. Lalitha Padmaja Thallapalli vs. ITO [2025] 181 taxmann.com 369 (Hyd.-Trib) 8. Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) submitted, since the assessee has raised a ground of violation of rules of natural justice, ld. First appellate authority was justified in restoring the issue to the A.O. 9. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to addition made on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period. The assessee is in the business of purchase and sale of gold bullion. In the year under consideration, the assessee had reported cash sales, which are duly recorded in the books ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e support this view. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of ld. First appellate authority and direct the A.O. to delete the addition made of Rs. 38,92,692/-. 11. In view of our decision above, the other issue raised by the assessee regarding the applicability of section 115BBE of the Act having become academic, does not require adjudication at this stage, hence, kept open. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13. Insofar as Revenue's appeal, being ITA No. 6132/Mum/2025 is concerned, the assessee through letter dated 03.02.2026 has made an application purportedly under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules seeking to support the decision of ld. First appellate authority on the ground that the proceeding initiated u/s. 147 of the Act are invalid due to lack of proper sanction. Since, the aforesaid issue raised by the assessee is a purely legal and jurisdictional issue, going to the root of the matter and affecting the validity of the impugned assessment order, we propose to deal with the issue at the very outset. It is the say of the assessee that by the time the A.O. passed the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duct 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 notice as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022; 129 c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148- A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b)." Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year. Thus, noncompliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 vitiates their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148. (d) Grant of sanction by the specified authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. 9. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the A.Y. 2017-18 fell for completion on 31st March 2021. As the expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction only till 30th June 2021. 10. On perusal of the order dated 18.08.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed, as well as the notice under section 148 was issued, after the expiry of three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, as pe....