TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aceless manner, therefore the reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 3. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO issued reopening notice u/s 148 on 28/07/2022, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, however approval is from PCIT. The approval is not in accordance with law, therefore liable to be quashed. 4. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28/07/2022 is after expiry of three years from the end of the Assessment Year: 2017-18 and the income escapement is below 50 lacs, i.e. Rs. 28,86,000/-, therefore reopening is bad in law. II. Addition u/s 68 of Rs. 28,86,000/-: 5. The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs. 28,86,000/- in the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without considering the submission and documents filed by the appellant wherein the assessee had explained the source of deposit along with relevant evidence, therefore the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt released as it was affecting his business operations. So, he has paid Outstanding demand for AY 2011-12 along with interest (Rs. 11,55,400) and paid 20% amount of Outstanding demand for AY 2017-18 (Rs. 7,75,682). 6. The Assessee further submits that on 16-10-2025, assessee was able to get his bank account released, as it took time to arrange funds for payment of outstanding demands. After that assessee on advice of the CA decided for filing appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. The papers and file were forwarded to the counsel for drafting and filing the appeal before Hon ITAT. 7. It is submitted that there was no malafide intention to delay the filing of the appeal. The assessee further submits that he has good case on merits and if an opportunity is granted to the assessee the correct tax shall be worked out. 8. It is further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor with any malicious intention. The default, if any, was due to the bonafide reason and circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. 9. In view of the above facts, the applicant submits that the delay was due to bonafide reasons. In Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... d. Length of delay is immaterial. e. A litigation does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay, therefore a justice oriented approach is required by courts. f. Since explanation of assessee did not smack mala fide or was not put forth as a dilatory strategy, delay in filing appeal was to be condoned. g. In every case of delay there can be same lapses on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to shut the door against him. h. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. 12. The assessee submits that the explanation of the assessee did not smack malafide or was not put forth as a dilatory strategy, the delay was to be condoned. 13. The Appellant therefore prays that the delay of 79 days may be condoned. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Prabhulal Kalji Doshi) Appellant TRUE COPY 2.1. We have perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee raised legal issue vide Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4, challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under the new regime for reopening of the assessment. He submitted that original notice u/s 148 issued under the old regime was dated 05/05/2021, to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1. The Revenue after following the procedure as per the new regime u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27/05/2022, which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai, wherein the reasons recorded states that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 28,86,000/- had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. The Ld.AR submitted that the notice issued under section 148A(b) and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act are beyond three years and that the income escaping assessment is observed to be Rs. 28,86,000/-. 4.1. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director Section 151(ii) of the new regime More than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly corelated to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has an extended time till 30th June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has time till 31st March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31st March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1st April 2021. 78. For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31st March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30th June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." 5.1.1. On a bare reading of the above extract from the decision, it is noted that under the new provisions of Section 148A introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, the Ld. AO is required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authority at four stages, namely:- a. Section 148(a)-to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b)-to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirem....