TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,21,13,012/- made u/s 69C towards undisclosed income on account of bogus purchases from concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain group, based on credible information received from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in directing the AO to delete the bogus purchases made by the AO when the primary issue that whether the purchase party is bogus or purchase is bagus has not been examined because if the purchase party is bogus and purchase is genuine then estimation is correct but if purchase is bogus then the entire purchase amount deserves to be added?" 3. "Whether on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions as extended by the TOLA on 30.06.2021. The assessee again filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring the income of Rs. 6,89,627/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, following the mechanism prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022, after considering the submission of the assessee, the AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) and issued a fresh notice under Section 148 on 17.07.2022. 2.2 Thereafter, the assessment was transferred to faceless assessment unit wherein the Assessing Officer considered the total amount of the purchases amounting to Rs. 2,21,13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... procedural irregularity where notice u/s 148 was issued by the JAO, instead of the FAO, in view of CBDT's notification no. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. Also, the said notice was time barred in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC Online SC 2693. The addition has been made for purchases without rejecting books of accounts, which, strictly speaking, leads to double addition of the same amount. The AO has started the computation of income from the returned income declared by the appellant, which has been arrived at after considering the purchases and sales reflected in the books of accounts and bank statements of the appellant. Considering the overall facts of the case, I am of the consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concur with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO attempted to revisit a concluded issue based on "borrowed satisfaction," which is impermissible in law. 4.2 Further, the assessee challenged validity of the notice issued under Section 148 on the grounds of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) clarified the application of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) to the new reassessment regime, the notice dated 30.6.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act ( under the old provision) was considered to be notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and thereafter the Assessing Officer was required to issue the notice u/s 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.3 As the "clock started ticking" on 06.06.2022 and the AO had 0 days of surviving period, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued by 06.06.2022. The notice issued on 17.07.2022 is clearly time-barred. We find no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the notice failed the test of limitation prescribed by the Apex Court. 4.4 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also examined validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer(FAO) under the provisions of faceless assessment procedure, which is invalid relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologie....