TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order dated 29-05-2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 under the section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(In short "the Act"). The assessee also filed the cross objection in the Revenue's appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the additions were made by the AO on the basis of credible information received from the Investigation Wing that assessee has availed accommodation entries from Maa Sharda Vincom Private Limited & M/s Manak Estate and Finance Private Limited. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by ignoring the addition amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (part of total accommodation e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law in presuming that absence of direct bank evidence invalidates the case. However, the essence of accommodation entries is laundering unaccounted cash in exchange for cheques. These are professionally masked transactions and the cask trail is deliberately hidden. The AO's conclusion was based on preponderance of probability a valid legal standard under tax jurisprudence and supported by third -party statements and seized documents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 20-09-2016 by declaring total income of Rs. 7,03,59,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29-12- 2018 assessing total income at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal before the tribunal. The assessee also filed the cross objection in the appeal. 6. Cross Objection No. 285/Del/2025 In the cross objection has filed on the following grounds: (i) Because on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not holding that the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 both dt. 29-07-2022 were invalid and bad in law being time barred as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 SC. Accordingly the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. (ii) Because on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not annulling the reassessment as order under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Surviving Time Limit 30-06-2021 Date of SC order in Ashish Agarwal's case 04-05-2022 Date of providing information/notice u/s 148A(b) in pursuance of Ashish Agarwal (pg.5-9 of PB) 20-05-2022 Time limit to file the reply as u/s 148A(b) i.e within 2 week 06-06-2022 Replied file by the assessee (pg.1023) 06-06-2022 Time excluded as per Rajeev Bansal's Case 28-06-2021-to 6-06-2022 Time that was available /left to issue notice u/s 148 AS TOLA limit 2 days Extended time to be given as per fourth Proviso to section 149(1) 7 days Time limit to issue notice u/s 148 as per section 149(as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and as per Rajeev Bansal's case ) i.e. 7 days from 13-06-2022 Order passed u/s 148....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arwal (Supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assessee to reply to the cause notices must be excluded in terms of the third proviso to section 149. 111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assessee to the show cause notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities; (i) consider the reply of the assessee under section 149A(C);(ii) take a decision under section 149A(d ) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Income Tax Department [2025] 174 taxmann.com 925 (Delhi) dated 28-04-2025. 11. The Ld. DR has submitted that assessee, company has never raised this issue that the assessment, is time barred before the Ld.AO during the re-assessment proceedings. The notice was issued within time in the pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal after complying the all conditions. She relied the order of the Assessing Officer. 12. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) the extended due date f....