TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itation by 2 days. The Revenue has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the administrative workflow was severely impacted by the sequence of public holidays surrounding the Christmas period, which led to a reduced operational capacity within the office during the critical final week of the year and it was submitted that the specific officer in the O/o the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati, who was instrumental in the finalization and authorization of these appeal documents, was away on sanctioned leave. The Revenue has requested the Bench to condone the delay of 2 days. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 5/GTY/2026: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)] erred in directing the Assessing Officer to withdraw the notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judicial precedents in a blanket manner without considering the specific facts of the fraud involved in this case. The direction to "withdraw the notice" is legally flawed in a situation where such a withdrawal prevents the Department from ever taxing a proven case of unexplained money under Section 69A. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in both law and fact by quashing the reassessment proceedings and deleting the addition of 6,00,50,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a procedural irregularity in the manner of issuing a notice should not automatically invalidate an assessment where grave findings of tax evasion and document fabrication have been established. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order that is bad in law, contrary to the facts of the case, and against the principles of natural justice and revenue protection. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or amend any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of the hearing." II. ITA No. 6/GTY/2026: "1. On the facts and in the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the Ld. AO to respectfully follow the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which was legally binding and no exception to that is legally permissible. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Ld. AO was not justified in contemptuously ignoring and belittling the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sah v. UOI (2024) 471 ITR 228 (Gau) which was cited before him by the assessee and a copy of the said judgment was also furnished to him, as also quoted by the Ld. AO himself at page nos. 7 to 9 of the impugned order of re-assessment and thereafter, the Ld. AO was not justified in not following the said binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in violation of judicial hierarchical system prevalent in the country and more further, passing of such a non-speaking order by the Ld. AO, after ignoring the submissions of the assessee is bad in law and not sustainable on this count alone. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have also held that the jurisdictional notice dated 28.04.2023 issued under section 148 of the Act by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s violation of the principles of natural justice and by travelling beyond the scope of information and material disclosed in the SCN issued under section 148A(b) of the Act and also by ignoring the submissions of the appellant in gross violation of the provisions of section 148A(c) of the Act and the mandatory instructions of the Hon'ble CBDT, the same is without jurisdiction and bad in law and consequently, the order of re-assessment is liable to be cancelled. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the order u/s 148A dated 28.04.2023 having been passed without allowing opportunity of personal hearing despite specific request made by the assessee in its reply to SCN issued u/s 148A, the said order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and binding guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble CBDT and hence, bad in law and consequently, the order of re-assessment is liable to be quashed. 10. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in absence of necessary enquiry as mandated by provisions of section 148A(a) of the Act and as instructed by the Hon'ble CBDT having been conducted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me with cogent reasons, such unreasoned and non-speaking order is void, bad in law and unsustainable and the impugned addition is liable to be deleted on this count alone. 15. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Ld. AO has accepted the fact that the impugned amount of Rs. 6,00,50,000/- has already been included in 'Business Income' being part of sales, was not justified in adding the same amount again after accepting the same as part of 'business income'. The impugned addition thus, tantamounts to double addition which is legally impermissible, bad in law and unsustainable. 16. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that impugned addition of Rs. 6,00,50,000/- having been made by the Ld. AO by relying upon inadmissible materials also which were gathered behind the back of the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the assessee in respect of the same, which is not only in gross violation of principles of natural justice but is also in utter disregard to the statutory provisions of section 142(3) of the Act and hence, the said addition is liable to be deleted on thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For that the cross-objector craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of cross-objection and/or to modify or resign any ground(s) of cross-objection before or at the time of hearing." IV. CO No. 5/GTY/2026: "1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO by invoking provisions of section 68 by arbitrarily and whimsically presuming that M/s. Consistent Constructions P. Ltd., is a shell company which is contrary to the own findings of the department in several other cases including in the case of the said Consistent Constructions P. Ltd. itself. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have also held that the notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2022 having been issued in breach of provisions of section 151A of the Act, no valid jurisdiction was acquired by the Ld. AO and consequently, the order of re-assessment is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have also held that in absence of approval of the Specified Authority under section 151 of the Act having been obtained by the Ld. AO as evidenced by the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 merely for verification and making a roving and fishing enquiry, which is legally impermissible and bad in law and consequently, the impugned order of re-assessment is untenable and is liable to be quashed. 8. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in absence of necessary enquiry as mandated by provisions of section 148A(a) of the Act having been conducted in the instant case by the Ld. AO, the issuance of SCN under section 148A(b) of the Act was without jurisdiction and bad in law and consequently, the order of assessment passed in pursuance thereof is untenable. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act being not in accordance with the law, the order of re-assessment is untenable. 10. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have also held that the Ld. AO erred both in law and in facts in arbitrarily adding Rs. 2,65,00,000/- to the income of the appellant by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. For that the impugned addition being beyond the jurisdiction, the same is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecured loans/advances of Rs.6,00,50,000/- from Consistent Construction Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the case was re-opened. Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s. Consistent Constructions Pvt. Ltd to file certain details such as copy of purchase bills or vouchers, date of transaction with quantity trade, mode of payment, copies of the transport bill, e-way Bill, freight invoices etc. to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction, Bank statements, reflecting the transaction of payment made to the assessee, copy of ledger account of purchase made with the assessee as appearing in the books of accounts for FY 2015-16 but no reply/details were submitted. Since the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions made with M/s. Consistent Constructions Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.6,00,50,000/-, the sum claimed to be on account of the transactions made with M/s. Consistent Constructions Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.6,00,50,000/-was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee under the head 'income from other sources'. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,09,97,506/- u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are required to be issued in an automated manner without there being any interface between the department and the assessee. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent however discussions and issue as to whether there is any vested or any fundamental right in respect of the assessee remand for automated issuances of notice. The Delhi high Court vide Judgment and order dated 26.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3535/2021 & C.M. Appl. No. 10693/2021 & Ors has categorically held that there is no fundamental right or legal right available to an assessee to demand that the notices though automated digital allocation should be issued. 10 The question of whether the petitioner has the fundamental right or not may not be required to be answered to the present proceedings inasmuch as Mr. Keyal has fairly submitted that in terms of the provisions under Section 151 A, the Department has already framed a scheme and the same is notified by notification dated 29.03.2022. 11. As discussed above, the scope of the scheme is for the purposes of the assessment, reassessment, computation under Section 147 and for issuances of notices under 148 and which shall be d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. DR stated that the assessee could not disprove the allegation of accommodation entries and could not file the details of the transportation for the sales made, if any. It was also submitted that in A.Y. 2018-19 the assessee had supplied goods weighing approximately 300 tonnes but it could not be established how the sales were made as the transportation details and challans were not produced before the Ld. AO. It was also submitted that there is no provision in the Act empowering the Ld. CIT(A) to direct the Ld. AO to withdraw the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that since proper submission could not be made before the Ld. AO on the issue relating to accommodation entries and subsequently in the case of other assessee, the Consistent Construction Pvt. Ltd. has not been held to be a shell company therefore, it was requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO so that the assessee can make proper submission as the appeal was allowed only on the jurisdictional issue and the Ld. DR submitted that the Act has a new section introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect relating to the dispute of issue of notice by Jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, all the grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes." 7. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Roma Devi (supra) and in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside as the direction to withdraw the notice was not in accordance with law as per section 251 of the Act and the matter may be remanded before the Ld. AO so that a proper opportunity of being heard may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any in other cases does not result in the transactions with the assessee being genuine. Our attention was also drawn to page 12 paragraph 34 of the assessment order in which the Ld. AO had mentioned certain discrepancies relating to Form No. 3CD report and which is as under: 3.4 Variations proposed on the basis of inference drawn (specify the basis of inference and quantify the variation proposed, if possible).: As per the ledger of M/s Consistent Construction Pvt Ltd submitted by the assesse, the total total transactions between the assessee and Consistent Construction Pvt Ltd in FY 2017-18 are to the tune of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- out of which sale entries are of Rs. 1,37,85,660/-. The assessee has failed to provide any proof of movement of goods to back the sales made with M/s Consistent Construction Pvt Ltd. Moreover, no credible information backed with documentary evidences has been furnished pertaining to credit entries made in the ledger account apart from the sales. Hence, the genuineness of transaction with M/s Consistent Construction Pvt Ltd isn't established. In the view of the discussion above, it is evident that Consistent Construction Pvt Ltd is ....