TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant to assessment years 2015-16 & 2013-14. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical and similar, hence, the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts related to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has argued only the common legal ground nos. 2 & 3 in both the appeals, which read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that reopening the assessment of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequent reassessment order under section 147/143(3) without complying with the statutory conditions and the procedure prescr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from her saving bank account and payment of Rs. 120000/- was made in cash for stamp duty. The balance amount has been paid by Smt. Shashi Garg. The assessee also submitted copy of bank account statement to substantiate her claim. On perusal of bank account statement of Smt. Monika Garg and Smt. Shashi Garg, AO noted that bank account of Monika Garg is credited by transfer of fund from Lalit Garg HUF, Mohan Garg HUF, M/s Jitendra Enterprises and bank account and Dharam Chand Garg and sons HUF. However, assessee could not explain nature of transaction and also failed to explain genuineness and creditworthiness of persons /HUF/concern from where fund were received. Moreover, assessee also failed to explain source of cash expenditure of Rs. 1.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,40,500/- declared in the subject assessment year. The assessee has not placed copy of bank evidencing the source of loan of the loaner. Therefore, source of the loan remains unsubstantiated. These HUF has been created to route the entries and in fact HUF does not have any income but income has been created for the sake of filing ITR. Therefore, HUF is not capable to make advances to the assessee and it is own of the assessee which has been routed through cheque. Similar is the position in the case of M/s Jitendera Enterprises and Lalit Garg HUF. Since source of advancement of loan not placed nor the capacity proved. Assessee failed to prove the capacity of loaner, source of advancement of loan remained unexplained, hence, the investm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the above, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the notice u/s. 148 and consequent order passed u/s. 147(143(3) are illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. As search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 6.6.2018, i.e. prior to the issuance of notice u/s. 148 dated 19.12.2018, thus, on the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148, the case of the assessee was already covered by the provisions of section 153A of the Act, which gets triggered immediately upon initiation of search. It was further submitted that once a search is initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -III Versus Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380 ITR 573, wherein it has been held as under- "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: 1. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii ............." 7. In view of the above prec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act in respect of those six assessment years which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of section 153A of the Act and accordingly the Assessing Officer was not justified in issuing notice under section 148 on August 28, 2006 and in completing the impugned assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on October 31, 2006. The Assessing Officer instead of complying with the requirement of section 153A proceeded with the provisions of section 147/148 which are not applicable in the assessment under section 153A of the Act, therefore, the impugned assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is a nullity and as such the assessment order dated Oct....