2026 (7) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mentioned above, since the issues are same in both the appeals - one filed by the Department and other - cross objection filed by the assessee are consolidated and one order is passed as under: 2. From the assessment order, it is observed that the above Co-operative Marketing Society made cash deposits of Rs. 7.35 crore in its current account of Union Bank of India and also the Assessee-Society has made cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 3.93 lakhs during the relevant year under consideration. Apart from this, the assessee has received contract receipts of Rs. 6.66 lakhs from A.P. State Civil Suppliers Corporation Limited and received a Commission of Rs. 8.26 lakhs from A.P. State Civil Suppliers Corporation Limited. But the Assessee-S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it was argued. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the Assessee-Society has stated that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid because the notice is not in accordance with law as Faceless Assessment Scheme as prescribed under section 151A of the Act in respect of the reassessment came into vogue w.e.f. 29.03.2022 and all the notices thereafter should have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit following the provisions of section 151A of the Act. Since the assessment order was not passed following Faceless Assessment Scheme as prescribed under section 151A of the Act as prescribed, the said notice is invalid and required to be quashed. Since there is no basis for issuing this notice, all other additions should also be rendered as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence there is no infirmity in the notice issued. Hence the order of Ld.CIT(A) quashing this notice of 148 of the Act is erroneous and unsustainable. The second ground raised by the Department before the ITAT is that the Ld.CIT(A) ignored the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Act and section 124(3)(b) of the Act, where it was stated that the assessee ought to have raised any objection with respect to jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the stipulated time of one month from the date of service of notice under section 143(2) or 142(1) of the Act. But in this case, the assessee has not filed any objection within the stipulated period and the Ld.CIT(A) is ....