TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 2028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposits of Rs. 20,00,000/- during the F.Y.2014-15. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short "Ld.AO"] provided an opportunity to the assessee under section 148A(b) of the Act requesting explanation for the cash deposits. Considering the assessee's reply, Ld. AO passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 07.04.2022 considering it as a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16. Thereafter, the case was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022 requesting the assessee to file the return of income. In response, assessee filed the return of income admitting an income of Rs. 2,67,690/- on 05.05.2022. The case was later transferred to the Faceless Assessment Unit and thereafter notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 19.06.2023 and notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 21.06.2023 was issued and served on the assessee calling for details. Since the assessee did not comply with the notice, reminder letter dated 08.09.2023 was issued requesting for compliance. Further, show-cause notice was issued on 19.07.2023. In response, assessee in his reply dated 20.10.2023 submitted copy of ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax act after 01.04.2021 as per Finance act 2021.Whereas the notices were sent by JAO, i.e ITO, Ward-1, Tenali, in non-faceless manner instead of FAO which need to be faceless as per the scheme framed by CBDT and u/s151A, and hence the assessment is invalid & void ab-initio. This was decided by Jurisdictional HC in Kankanala Ravindra reddy v ITO & Others, (2024)94 TR(A) 102 (Tel-HC): 2023 TaxPub(DT) 5828 (Tel-HC) dtd 14.09.2023 ] 6. Wrong jurisdiction of Ld AO: 6.1 That the Ld AO in fact had failed in not analysing the "Income escaped" during initial round of assessment i.e. sec 148A(d) nor PCCIT who gave approval u/s 151 instead of PCIT being below Rs. 50 Lakhs. 6.2 That the Ld PCCIT had erred in giving his approval without application of mind independently and has approved mechanically. 6.3 The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of approval received from higher authority. 7. Approval not obtained from higher authority for sec 148A(d)/148 Separately: Ld AO by oversight did not obtain any approval from higher authority for passing an order sec 148A(d) separately, since the show cause notices u/s 148A were issued a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out bringing on record any conclusive evidence except allegation. Therefore, Sec 69A is in applicable to the case of assessee. 11. NO NEXUS WITH INFORMATION: Ld AO had erred in formation of Belief was not based on relevant and cogent material, hence entire assessment fails and make it infructuous. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tadikonda Ramulu v. AO - 1990 186 ITR 148 (AP) 12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal before your goodself." 5. The primary ground raised by the assessee relates to the jurisdictional validity of notice under section 148A(b) issued after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period and the absence of a valid signature on the notice, rendering the proceedings void ab initio. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"] submitted that, firstly, to argue the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the time baring of the notice's issued under section 148 of the Act. 6. Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"] submitted that notice under section 148A(b) dated 20.03.2022 was issued without any signature on the notice. He therefore pleaded tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O under section 148 of the Act cannot be considered as valid. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws cited by the Ld.AR. It is not in dispute that the date of the order u/s 148A(d) is 07.04.2022 and that of the consequential section 148 notice is also dated post 31.03.2022. In the instant case the notice under section 148 was issued on 07.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16. It is the contention of the assessee that the said notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso of the unamended proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) held as follows:- "19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e)** (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; ** 46. The ingredients of ....