TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('the Act') is unsustainable both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the net taxable income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, which is time barred under section 149(1)(b). Therefore, the addition of Rs. 8,53,660 in the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act is invalid, bad in law and to be quashed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the notices related to 148A and subsequent notices u/s 148 reassessment were being sent to a mail id which was nonexistent and the assessee was not aware of reassessment proceedings. Hence the order u/s 148A(d) passed without the opportunity of being heard and subsequent assessment order u/s 147 passed is invalid, bad in law and to be quashed. 4. The impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be cancelled. 6. Any other gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home her contentions 8. Ms. Mrudulatha, CA, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee (for short, "AR") has confined her contention only to the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, i.e., beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It was submitted by her that in view of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, since the income of the assessee had been assessed at Rs. 8,53,659/-, which is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, thus the notice issued on 29.02.2024, being beyond a period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is barred by limitation. The Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contention had relied upon certain judicial pronouncements, viz. (i). Vasuki Global Industrial Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2025) 180 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat); (ii). ACIT Vs. Rajiv Gupta (2025) 180 taxmann.com 709 (Hyderabad); (iii). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nitin Nema (2024) 468 ITR 105 (SC); (iv). Pramila Mahadev Tadkase Vs. Income Tax Officer (2024) 468 ITR 275 (Karnataka); and (v). Ratan Bej Vs. Principal Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with reference to the material available with the AO at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148, and not on the basis of the income ultimately assessed. Although, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that if a basic analysis of the information available with the AO glaringly reveals that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment for the subject year is below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lacs, then the AO cannot be allowed to put blinkers and remain oblivion to the said material fact. 14. Be that as it may, it is trite law that the validity of reassessment proceedings must be examined based on the reasons recorded and material available at the time of issuance of notice. We are of the view that the ultimate determination of income at a figure lower than Rs. 50 lakhs cannot retrospectively invalidate the assumption of jurisdiction, if at the inception stage the AO had material, which, prima facie, satisfied the statutory requirement. 15. We find that in the present case, the AO had information relating to cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs. 1,57,85,000/-, which read in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee had not filed his r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specific and quantifiable financial data obtained by the AO through the system. We, thus, are of firm conviction that as the aforesaid case is factually distinguishable, therefore, the same will not assist the case of the assessee before us. (B). ACIT Vs. Rajiv Gupta (2025) 180 taxmann.com 709 (Hyderabad): (i). We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case was dealing with a case where the material available with the AO did not reveal escapement of income represented in the form of an asset amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Thus, the Tribunal, on facts, found that the alleged escapement did not satisfy the statutory threshold contemplated under Section 149(1)(b), and therefore the notice issued beyond three years was held to be invalid. Accordingly, the decision in the aforementioned case was based on the absence of material indicating the escapement of income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. However, in the present case, the AO was in possession of information showing cash withdrawals of Rs. 1,57,85,000/-, which, in the absence of any return of income having been filed by the assessee, coupled with the failure on his part to respond to the not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee had neither filed his return of income for the year under consideration, nor filed any reply to the notice issued by the AO under Section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 05/02/2024, constituted sufficient material available with the AO at the stage of initiation of the proceedings to trigger the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. We, thus, are of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decision, which was rendered on a different factual footing, will not advance the case of the assessee before us. (E). Ratan Bej Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2024) 467 ITR 288 (Jharkhand): In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand had examined the validity of reassessment where the alleged escaped income did not meet the statutory threshold and the jurisdictional facts were not established. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court had, on those facts, held that the notice issued beyond three years was unsustainable. In contrast, in the present case before us, the material available with the AO disclosed substantial banking transactions exceeding Rs. 1.50 crores (supra), which read in the backdrop of ....