TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the notice u/s.148A(b) issued on 23.03.2023, as it is without jurisdiction, as it has been issued by the Jurisdictional A.O Ward-2, Karimnagar, Telangana. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had erroneously assumed jurisdiction for passing the order under s.148A(d) of Income tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) dated 07-04- 2022 ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042605328(1) and vide DIN: consequential notice under section 148 of the Act dated 08-04-2022 vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022- 23/1042648220(1), whereas, in terms of section 144B of the Act, the jurisdiction to issuance of such notice vests with the Assessing Officer of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed 4. The reassessment order is void ab initio as it was passed without valid service of notice on the assessee and in denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard, since all communications were sent only to the Tax Consultant and not to the assessee, in violation of principles of nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to. However, the assessee failed to file any return in compliance to the aforesaid notice. 3. The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, which, however, remained uncompiled by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO, considering the fact that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 57,46,000/- made in the aforesaid bank accounts, held the entire amount as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. As the assessee appellant, despite having been intimated about the fixation of the appeal, had not put up an appearance, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose of the appeal after hearing the respondent-revenue, perusing the orders of the authorities below, and considering the material available on record as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962. 7. Ms. Uppaluri Meena, Learned Senior Departmental Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under:- "6. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, notice under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. As per the first proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act, the impugned notice is beyond the period of six years from the Assessment Year 2017-18. The reopening of assessment proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the same issue, it cannot be made. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the notice dated 20.01.2022 issued for rectification of mistake and the order under Section l48A(d) of the Act passed on 22.04.2024. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal; High Court of Delhi in Sheetal international (P) Ltd v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-2z; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Tarish Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd., v. Union of India3; High Court of Rajasthan in Shree Cement Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax; High Court of Bombay in Godrej Industries Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1X2), Mumbai, and by a coo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o for the following reasons: In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the position of law stands clear as regards the operation of amended Section 149(1) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 49 and 53 thereof are extracted hereunder: "49 The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the (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 account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of- (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs." 11. The first proviso) to the amended Section 149 of the Act prescribes that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, if a notice under Section148 of the Act could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act or as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. For the purposes of appreciating the first proviso, the un-am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so deals with exclusion of the period referred to in the fifth proviso i.e., the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act if it does not exceed seven days. In that event, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended. Accordingly, both the fifth and sixth provisos in the first place do not amount to clarification of the first proviso. These two provisos qualify the substantive amended Section 149 of the Act and do not relate to the un-amended Section 149 of the Act for which the first proviso takes care of. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the time spent from the issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act up to the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of the fifth and sixth provisos stands excluded for reckoning the limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is not worth acceptance. Section 148A of the Act lays down the procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act whereas Section 149 of the Act prescribes stric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h respect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act ie, three years or ten years, as the case may be. The Court also held that fifth and sixth provisos extend limitation for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, first proviso is an exception to the period of limitation and provides for a restriction on the notices under Section 148 of the Act being issued for assessment years up to 2021-22 (in this case, it is Assessment Year 2017-18) beyond a certain date. Therefore, the way the section would operate, is to fira decide whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Vet is within the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(2) or (b) of the Act. To decide whether the notice is within the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, the extension of time as prescribed in fifth and/or sixth proviso would be considered. The Court further held once. The notice is otherwise within the period of limitation, therea....