TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while disallowing appellant ground that AO has not granted opportunity of being heard before passing assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the act as the Ld. AO has given show cause notice on dated 20-05-2023 to reply. on dated 25-05-2023. The Ld. AO has given only 3 working days' time (because 20-05-2023 and 21-05-2023 was holiday on account of Saturday and Sunday) to reply SCN for such huge addition of Rs. 433,57,29,066/- The Ld. AO has completed the assessment on 29.05.2023 in very hurriedly manner and giving very short opportunity to appellant to reply SCN, due to which assessee unable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me escaping assessment by issuing notice u/s 148. The order passed u/s 148A(d) is bad in law as thus, order passed on that basis for income escaping assessment is also bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on law and fact while confirming the addition of Rs. 433,57,29,066/ on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for amount received from Orange Tradex Pvt. Ltd, S & H Chemicals & Krrish Enterprise. The Ld. CIT(A) has also totally ignore the facts and submission by appellant in assessment proceeding as well as in appeal proceeding and has failed to discharge his burden of proof to establish the addition and passed non-speaking order by merely relying on the information received from DDIT(Inv) & order u/s 148A(d). Hence, on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act by treating the alleged sales made to the aforesaid three parties as non-genuine. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer relied upon investigation reports, statements recorded under section 131(1A) of the Act, and findings of alleged hawala operators to hold that the parties to whom sales were shown were merely accommodation entry providers and that no actual movement of goods had taken place. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to produce delivery challans, transportation documents, stock registers, confirmations or any cogent evidence to establish genuineness of the sales. It was further noted that the entities were non-existent or paper concerns, and discrepancies such as incorrect vehi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. v. CIT (Madras High Court) to support the proposition that transactions with accommodation entry providers can be treated as non-genuine in entirety. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The core issue for adjudication before us is the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 and consequential additions made thereunder. 9. At the outset, we note that the original notice under section 148 of the Act in the present case has been issued on 07.06.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had obtained accommodation entries from entities belonging to the Ardor Group. The assessee challenged the reopening, including by filing a writ petition before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, wherein interim stay was granted. Subsequently, proceedings were continued under section 148A pursuant to Ashish Agarwal (supra), and an assessment under section 147 read with section 144B was completed making substantial additions on account of alleged bogus transactions. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration, held that since the original notice under section 148 was issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16, the same was inherently time-barred in view of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Tribunal further held that once the initial notice itself is inval....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal thus quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground of limitation, holding that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by procedural compliance. 13. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid decisions makes it abundantly clear that the Coordinate Benches have consistently applied the binding law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have held that reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued after 01.04.2021 are invalid per se. The factual matrix in both the above cases involved reopening based on alleged accommodation entries and investigation reports-facts which are materially similar to the present case-yet the Tribunal has consistently held that jurisdictional validity must be examined first, and if the notice itself is ....