2025 (11) TMI 1974

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 25/05/2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. The CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case. Date: 20.02.2025 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the addition of Rs. 19,30,750/- u/s 68 and Rs. 59,185/- for commission variation. The case involves bogus LTCG transactions through Penny Stocks (M/s Kushal), as per CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019. Hence, monetary limits do not apply and further appeal is warranted. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding the notice u/s 148 as invalid without considering the exten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 25/05/2023 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,10,51,057/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), wherein he had, inter alia, assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, it was the claim of the assessee that as the impugned income that had escaped assessment amounted to less than Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, as per the mandate of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, no notice under section 148 of the Act could have been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, it was the claim of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CG)/Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) on penny stocks. Accordingly, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in observing that the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/07/2022 beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 9. Per contra, Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, relied upon the order of the CIT(A). Apart from that, the Ld. AR had placed on record a work sheet which as per him reveals that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation by a period of 52 days. 10. We have considered the contentions of the Learned Authorized ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicated." 12. On a careful perusal of section 149(1) of the Act (as was then available on the statute), we find that the same therein contemplated that no notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the AO has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in form of, viz., (i) asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of accounts, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to an amount of Fifty Lakh Rupees or m....