TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient opportunity of hearing on issuance of show cause notice nor provided proper video conference nor provided the material and the self serving statement recorded of third party, for making the alleged addition, resulting violation of natural justice. III. Addition of Rs. 57,50,000 u/s 69A: 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the Assessing Officer making the addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 50,00,000 and interest of Rs. 7,50,000/- merely on third party evidence without confronting the same to the assessee therefore the addition may be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer upholding addition u/s 69A of the Act and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 6. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/ or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal." 2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pressed Legal Ground No. 1, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the old regime, and TOLA. Significantly, the Revenue itself conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are liable to be dropped, as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. 4.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the extended ten-year limitation under section 149(1)(b), as amended, operates prospectively, and for earlier assessment years, the test is whether the six-year period under the old regime was still alive on the date of issuance of notice. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the six-year limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 22.07.2022, the same is clearly barred by limitation. 4.2 We also note that identical issues have been examined and decided by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including in Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain (supra) wherein notices issued after 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was quashed as time-barred, following Rajiv Bansal (supra). For ready reference, findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsal (Supra). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under- 19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of india, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e) ***** (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA ;***** 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is borred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16, the period of six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 is invalid since it is barred by limitation. Accordingly the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 9. Since we have already quashed the order under section 147 based on the legal contention of notice being time barred the other legal contentions raised by the assessee in the CO have become academic not warranting any adjudication. Accordingly the CO is partly allowed. 10. We have quashed the order of re-assessment for AY 2015-16 considering the legal contentions raised by the assessee in the C.O. therefore the appeals of the revenue for AY 2015-16 contending the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the merits of the issues have become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed." 4. The Ld. DR advanced arguments and filed written submission, which is taken on record. The Ld. DR placed reliance on paragraph 112 of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act on two separate grounds one that it was time barred and the other being on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). The judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) is not yet set aside or modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Applicant/petitioner submitted that the issue of concession made by the Ld. ASG in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case, came up for consideration before different High Courts where it is held that Notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 would be bad in law. In this regard he relied upon the following judgments: (a) ITO v. Venkatlal lyyappa Rajana [2025] 178 taxmann.com 410 (Karnataka) [05-08-2025] (b) Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central Pratishtha Garg v. Asstt. CIT, Central [2025] 171 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) [19-12-2024] (c) Lalit Gulati v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 273/305 Taxman 11 (Delhi) [02-05- 2025] 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have also perused the papers and proceedings. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra), would be applicable in the facts of the case of the Petitioner overlooking the crucial fact that it pertained to A.Y. 2015-16 for which a concession was made by the Ld. ASG. The Assessing Officer also completely overlooked the fact that in view of the decision of this court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), he could not have proceeded further. 14. Both the parties agree that in view of the decision of this Court in Hexanware (supra), the Assessment Order dated 3rd March 2025 is bad in law. This leave us with a limited question as to whether, in facts of the present case, the re- assessment order passed on 3rd March 2025 under Section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961 is bad in law even as per the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). 15. As mentioned earlier, the Assessment Year involved is A.Y. 2015-16 and the Notice under Section 148 is undisputedly issued on 5th April 2022, which is after 1st April 2021. Therefore, the said re-assessment proceedings ought to have been dropped in view of the concession made by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in paragraph 190) of the ....