TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were cumulative credit and debit transactions aggregating to Rs. 90,47,812/- in the assessee's bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer further observed that there were substantial inter-family transfers and transactions involving M/s. Unimex Pvt. Ltd./M/s. Unimex in which the assessee or his family members were interested. Initially, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 25.06.2021. Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022, the earlier notice issued under the erstwhile provisions was treated as deemed show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer provided information and material relied upon to the assessee and after considering the reply and material available on record passed order under section 148A(d) dated 27.07.2022 holding that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Consequent thereto, notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 was issued and served upon the assessee through registered e-mail id/e- filing account. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issolution deed, surrender of PAN communication or complete supporting evidences relating to the partnership concern. The Assessing Officer further observed that as per the audited balance sheet of A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee's capital account in M/s. Unimex reflected negative closing balance and therefore the claim regarding return of current capital remained unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated Rs. 17,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 6. In respect of the alleged gifts aggregating to Rs. 32,00,000/- received from father, the Assessing Officer observed that though the assessee furnished copy of gift deed and certain details, no returns of income of the donor were available on the departmental portal and the donor was not assessed to tax. The Assessing Officer further observed that the gift deed was unregistered and no satisfactory evidence establishing financial capacity and source of funds in the hands of the donor was furnished. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had disclosed lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were required before the premises became habitable. 10. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, partly allowed the appeal. In relation to the gifts from father, the CIT(A) observed that the bank statement of late Shri Ajit B. Zota showed receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 10.09.2012 and corresponding transfer thereof to the assessee on 11.09.2012. Accordingly, the CIT(A) accepted the source of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the hands of the donor and directed deletion of addition to that extent. However, in respect of remaining amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- transferred on 25.03.2013, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to furnish complete bank statement of the donor for the entire period and failed to establish the source of such amount in the hands of the donor. The CIT(A) therefore sustained addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act. 11. In relation to the claim of indexed cost of improvement, the CIT(A) examined the contractor bill furnished by the assessee and observed that the bill did not identify the property in question and several items mentioned therein related to repairs and works of commercial s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim without affording the Appellant a specific opportunity to produce this connecting evidence for verification. The relevant bank statement pages are now adduced to conclusively establish the source of the source. 2.4.The Appellant submits that since the identity of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction (banking channel) are established, and the partial gift (Rs. 20 Lakhs) was accepted, the remaining Rs. 12 Lakhs should also be allowed based on consistency and the now-available evidence. 3. Re: Disallowance of Cost of Improvement (Para 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of CIT(A) Order) 3.1.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the Cost of Improvement of Rs. 8,25,000.00 (Indexed: Rs. 13,54,335.00) by incorrectly characterizing the renovation expenses as pertaining to a commercial shop rather than the residential unit. 3.2.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the specific location and nature of the property: 3.3.The flat is located on the 1st Floor with a road-facing Terrace. 3.4.Accessible terraces require significant security measures, necessitating the installation of heavy grills and cages as reflected in the contractor's bill. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e treated as deemed notices under section 148A(b) of the Act, while preserving all defences available under section 149. The learned AR further submitted that as per the first proviso to section 149(1), reassessment proceedings could not survive if they were already time barred under the old regime. He submitted that the controversy relating to applicability of TOLA stood settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein the mechanism for computation of surviving limitation period was laid down. 17. The learned AR invited our attention to para 114 of the judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), particularly clause (h), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reassessment notices under section 148 under the new regime were required to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and all notices issued beyond such surviving period would be time barred and liable to be set aside. 18. The learned AR submitted that applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the notice under section 148 issued on 28.07.2022 was beyond the surviving limitation p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued on 28.07.2022 is barred by limitation as the surviving limitation period expired on 25.06.2022. The learned AR submitted that since the original notice under section 148 was issued on 25.06.2021, the surviving period available under TOLA was only five days i.e. upto 30.06.2021 and therefore after excluding the period contemplated under Ashish Agarwal (supra), the notice under section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 25.06.2022. 25. We find substantial force in the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has exhaustively considered the interplay between the substituted reassessment regime introduced by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of TOLA and the directions issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that all reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving limitation period available under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA would be time barred and liable to be set aside. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 114(h) of the judgment specifically concluded as under: "(h) The Assessing Officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under se....