2026 (5) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ITA 636 arises from order dated 12.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act, by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. ITA 637 arises from order dated 13.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act, by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 1.1 In the quantum matter apparently there was an investigation carried out on one Shri Joginder Pal Gupta, an entry operator. It was alleged that the assessee had benefitted from bogus entries provided by one of the shell companies controlled by said Shri Joginder Pal Gupta. Admittedly during the course of assessment proceedings no worthwhile compliance was made and the Ld. AO held that the unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,25,00,000/- was added u/s 69D of the Act. 1.2 The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he could not succeed on the ground that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RSM Softech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 20-21 15.06.2022 Reply was filed by the Assessee submitting, inter alia, that: (i) the information forming the basis of the present proceedings had already been found factually incorrect in the assessment order dated 29.03.2022; (ii) the returned income stood accepted on the very same issue; and (iii) the fresh proceedings were accordingly without jurisdiction and deserved to be dropped. 22-23 18.07.2022 Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed rejecting the submissions of the Assessee and holding the initiation of fresh proceedings to be valid, based on approval obtained from an incorrect authority, namely the PCIT. However, the competent authority for granting such approval was th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bout the dates mentioned. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records and documents before us. While it deserves to be noted with a sense of concern that the assessee has been very casual in terms of complying before the authorities below and thus, we are faced with a situation where the issue of assumption of jurisdiction is coming up for the first time before the ITAT only. However, the Ld. AR has been able to demonstrate that the notice dated 18.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act should have been issued only after obtaining the prior approval of the PCCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act. In paras 77 to 78 of the Rajeev Bansal case (supra), it is clearly mentioned as an illustration for AY 2017-....