TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciety could not explain the source for the same. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 81,03,323/-. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 31.03.2021 was issued. The assessee in response to the same filed the return declaring income of Rs. 5,75,910/- on 14.03.2022. Subsequently statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 81,03,320/- by making addition of the same u/s 69A of the Act treating the deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash deposits from undisclosed sources. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer. It was argued that the Assessing Officer has only given 2 days time for making the compliance. So far as the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... process. d) The reopening of the assessment was based on presumption and surmises, reflecting borrowed satisfaction by the Ld. AO. e) Mere cash deposits in the bank account cannot per se justify the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 2. The assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is bad in law and void ab initio as once reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in the search of 3rd party then the provisions of section 153C of the Act are applicable which override the applicability of sections 147 and 148 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,03,320/- made by the Ld. AO under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, without adequately verifying whether the basic ingredients of Section 69A were satisfied. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the peak credit theory. The account statements clearly demonstrate both deposits and withdrawals, which ought to have been considered while determining the unexplained cash deposits. 6. The assessee has also raised an additional ground which reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 though belatedly. Therefore, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad (supra) in absence of any notice issued u/s 143(2), the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the above proposition, he also relied on the following decisions: i) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 188 Taxman 113 (SC) ii) Chand Bihari Agrawal vs. CIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com 245 (Patna) 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that since the Assessing Officer has only given two days time to the assessee to comply to the statutory notices, therefore, the assessment order has to be set aside due to insufficient time for submitting the details: i) Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 165 taxmann.com 415 (Bom) ii) Madhuri Sameer Gokhale vs. Addl. Joint ITO reported in (2025) 172 taxmann.com 696 (Bom) 13. He submitted that since the approval has been given by the superior authority merely in a mechanical manner, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law, the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the above proposition, he relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led return of income on 14.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 5,75,910/-, the details of which are as under: 19. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 on 31.03.2021 and the assessee vide letter dated 14.03.2022 has responded to the said notice, the details of which are as under: 20. Under these circumstances, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC that the assessee has not filed any written response to notice u/s 148 is incorrect. 21. We find the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad (supra) has held that where notice was issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 requiring the assessee to file a return within thirty days but return was filed after eight and a half months, since return was filed by the assessee in response to said notice though delayed, there should have been a notice issued under Section 143(2) as requirement to issue notice could not be dispensed with. The relevant observations of Hon'ble High Court read as under: "1. The appeal is filed against the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....============= Document 1 INDIAN INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM [Where the data of the Return of Income in Form ITR-1 (SAHAJ), ITR-2, ITR-2A, ITR-3, ITR-4S (SUGAM), ITR-4, ITR-5, ITR-7 transmitted electronically without digital signature] . (Please see Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962) Assessment Year 2015 .- 16.3 ITR-V PAN Name BABABHAI SADARABHAI SHAIKH DATE OF ELECTRONIC PERSONAL INFORMATION AND THE TRANSMISSION HOZPS1445M Flat/Door/Block No Name Of Premises/Building/Village 1 MUNDE HOSPITAL Road/Street/Post Office Area/Locality BURUD GALLI JAMKHED Town/City/District State Pin AHMEDNAGAR Maharashtra 413201 Form No. which has been ITR-4S electronically transmitted Individual Status Aadhaar Number Designation of AO (Ward / Circle) ITO WD-1, AHMEDNAGAR Original or Revised ORIGINAL E-filing Acknowledgement Number 354788330140322 Date(DD-MM-YYYY) 14-03-2022 1 Gross Total Income 1 575910 2 Deductions under Chapter-VI-A 2 0 3 Total Income 3 575910 a Current Year loss, if any 3a 0 4 Net Tax Payable 1 41387 5 Interest Payable 5 0 6 Total Tax and Interest Payable 6 41387 COMPUTATION OF....