TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 6,22, 198/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Order passed u/s. 147 of the act is bad in law, since the order issued u/s. 148A(d) dated 30.03.2022 is without jurisdiction since the Order was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer [International Taxation], Ward 1[1], Bangalore, which was ought to have been issued by National Faceless Assessment Cente in accordance with Notification No. 15/2022/F. No. 370142/13/2022-TPL "Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022", dated 28.03.2022 4. The Order passed u/s. 147 of the act is bad in law, since the notice issued u/s. 148 of the act dated 30.03.2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer [International Taxation], Ward 1[1], Bangalore, instead which was ought to have been issued by National Faceless Assessment Centre in accordance with Notification No. 15/2022/F. No. 370142/13/2022-TPL "Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022", dated 28.03.2022. The appellant places reliance on the following decisions - i) Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Tel.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelamma Vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Shivmogga. 6. The learned assessing officer has erred in re-opening the assessment u/s. 148A(d) of the act, since the learned assessing officer has accepted the same documents submitted by the appellant in response to the notice issued u/s. 148A of the act, explaining the source of investments made by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 52,41,475/- while passing the assessment order u/s. 147 of the act. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 4,36,520/- incurred towards stamp and registration charges for registering an immovable property as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 1,70,000/- being cash deposit made into appellant's bank account being the sale proceeds from sale of his car, as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the act on the facts and circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148A(b) of the Act, filed his reply on 25.3.2022 vide Acknowledgement No. 424448901250322 affirming that he is a non-resident and did not have any sources of income in India except interest on deposits and therefore, he was not required/liable to file any return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 in India. The assessee also confirmed to have purchased an immovable property worth Rs. 57,47,954/-, which was acquired by borrowing housing loan worth Rs. 42,75,000/- from the Axis Bank Ltd. jointly with Mrs. Anisha Ann Dsouza, wife of Nikhil Chandran and the balance amount of Rs. 14,72,954/- was paid out of the assessee's personal savings which was earned in the form of salary abroad as well as while he was resident in India and paid the applicable tax due thereon. Lastly, regarding the interest income of Rs. 14,655/- from the deposit with Axis Bank Ltd, the assessee submitted that the bank had already deducted the TDS@ 30%amounting to Rs. 4,531/-& there was no escapement of Income. Further, while uploading the reply to the said show cause notice on 25/03/2022, the assessee had also uploaded the housing loan sanction letter, copy of 26AS, evidence in respect of investment made in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of his claim, the cash deposits made in the bank account amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/- was also treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 14.3.2023 on a total assessed income of Rs. 6,06,520/- by completely ignoring the return of income filed by the assessee on 25.4.2022 declaring income of Rs. 15,678/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 14.3.2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Bengaluru-12. 5. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee since despite issuing 5 number of notices, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any written submission in respect of grounds of appeal and statement of facts. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) believed that the assessee was not aggrieved with the assessment order and therefore, not interested in prosecuting the same and accordingly left with no option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 6. Again, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s failed to disclose the sources of investment in the immovable property. We observed that in response to the said show cause notice dated 19/03/2022, the assessee had filed a detailed reply on 25.3.2022 vide e-proceedings response acknowledgement no.424448901250322 by submitting that the assessee is a non-resident during the assessment year 2015-16 and did not have any source of income in India except interest on deposits and therefore, he was not required to file any return of income for the AY 2015-16. Further, in his reply dated 19/03/2022, the assessee had categorically stated that he had purchased an immovable property from the Plama Developers Ltd. amounting to Rs. 57,47,954/- by borrowing housing loan worth Rs. 42,75,000/- from Axis Bank jointly with Mrs. Anisha Ann Dsouza (wife) and the balance of Rs. 14,72,954/- was paid out of his personal savings which was earned in the form of salary abroad as well as in India for the past years. He had also categorically stated to have deducted TDS of Rs. 57,480/- while making payment to the builder. The assessee had also submitted that the interest income of Rs. 14,655/- from the deposit with Axis Bank was also subjected to the TDS @....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5244/2023 dated 09/08/2023 has held as under- "7.2 The object behind insertion of section 148A by the Legislature w.e.f. 01/04/2021 interalia appears as follows: - (a) To prevent rampant and casual issuance of notice u/s 148 by the Revenue; (b) To save unnecessary harassment to the assessee of being subjected to reopening a case under section 148; (c) To save the Revenue of the time and energy which may be vested pursuing frivolous and fruitless proceedings u/s 148." We observed that in fact when the assessee filed a reply to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 25/03/2022, it clearly revealed that the amount of Rs. 57,47,954/- paid towards the Purchase of immovable property was only after obtaining the housing loan of Rs. 42,75,000/- from the Axis Bank. Meaning thereby the income chargeable to tax would obviously be less than 50 lakhs even if the AO disbelieved the explanation of the assessee with regard to balance amount of Rs. 14,72,954/- which the assessee claimed to have earned in the form of salary in abroad as well as in India. Clearly when the procedure is followed culminating in an order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, the Authority is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 148A of the Act for the alleged income escaping of Rs. 57,62,609/-, however, concluded the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs. 6,06,520/- only. We are of the considered opinion that the AO in the guise of the reopening of the assessment proceedings had only made a roving & phishing enquiry based on unfounded suspicion only. We take note of the fact that in the present case, the income stated to have escaped assessment which has been taken note of seeking to re-open the assessment for AY 2015-16 is the purchase transaction with Plama Developers Ltd. on which the assessee had also deducted tax at source while making the payment. 9.3 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here also to take note of the erstwhile section 149 of Act as applicable at the time of issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act for the purpose of this case which read as under- ^2[Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stituted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01/04/2021 "No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year- (a) If three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause(b); (b) If three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidences which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year. 9.4 Thus, section 149 of the Act stipulates restrictions on issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act & not on conducting any enquiry with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the provisions contained u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Thus, there is a clear distinction between 148A proceedings and 148-147 proceedings. The Revenue is free to conduct enquiry based on the information, but once during the course of 148A p....