TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In ITA No. 5735/Del/2025, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "Re: Validity of reassessment proceedings 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred on facts and in law in not holding that the re-assessment order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the assessing officer ('AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') is without jurisdiction, non-est, illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 30.07.2022 is barred by limitation having been issued beyond the surviving period as laid down in the case of Union ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act for issuance of (i) notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under erstwhile law and (ii) subsequent notice dated 30.07.2022 under amended section 148, have been obtained from wrong authority, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. 1.7 That the AO erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings without providing copy of mandatory sanction obtained under section 151 before initiating proceedings under section 148/148A of the Act. 1.8 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, jurisdictional notice dated 30.07.2022 issued by assessing officer under section 148 of the Act manually and without quoting mandatory DIN thereon is illegal and bad. 1.9 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 3. Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,94,33,185/- u/s 2(22)(c) of the IT Act, without appreciating the finding of Assessing Officer that the assessee being a substantial shareholder in both the lending and borrowing companies, the advance was squarely covered by the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e). 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3. Noida has erred in holding that the advance given by Eldeco Jalandhar Properties Pvt. Ltd. to Eldeco Sohna Projects Ltd. was in the nature of a commercial transaction/trade advance, without appreciating that part of the advance was used for repayment of earlier liabilities and therefore could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17 was bad in law as the same was issued after approval of PCIT(Central), Kanpur as against the requirement of approval by PCCIT/CCIT u/s 151 of the Act. He has placed on record a copy of the said notice wherein it is clearly mentioned that approval of PCIT(Central), Kanpur was taken for the same. 4.2 On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee had filed his return on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 28,57,96,690/-. Assessment was completed at returned income vide order dated 28.12.2018. Subsequently, the case was ought to be reopened and order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 30.07.2022 with the approv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 co-related 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 c....