TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had sources to explain the cash deposits of Rs. 19,45,500/- and also the unexplained investment of Rs. 25,87,452/-. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition u/s. 69 is not sustainable in law. 4. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal." 2. Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revenue is empowered to issue notice under section 148 beyond 6 years in light of first proviso of section 149(1)." 3. As the assessee, by raising the additional ground of appeal, has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for framing the impugned assessment, which would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the delay was not intentional and may kindly be condoned." The appeal has been filed on 29.04.2024, hence there is delay of 11 days. On perusing the explanation of the assessee, we are inclined to condone the delay as the same is for sufficient and good reasons and accordingly admit the appeal for adjudication. Ground 1.1 The addition made by the AO under section 69A is erroneous on facts and in law. Ground 1.2 The AO is not justified in making addition under section 69A when the facts of the case do not have the ingredients necessary for invoking the provisions of sec 69A. Assessment of entire Ground 1.3 cash deposits as the income of the assessee is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground 2.1 The addition made by the AO under section 69 is erroneous on facts and in law. Ground 2.2 The AO can clearly found out the source of investments is cash deposits through bank statements which are provided at the time scrutiny. Ground 2.3 The AO is not justified in making addition under section 69 when the facts of the case do not have the ingredients necessary for invoking the provisions of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pheld. The grounds of appeal no. 2.1 to 2.3 is dismissed. Regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 13,00,000/- in State Bank of Hyderabad, Rampur, Karimnagar, the appellant submitted bank statements, which showed only Rs. 6,00,000/- was deposited in cash, which has been accepted by AO. No documentary evidence was sought by the AO regarding the source of this deposit. Even during the appellate proceedings, no explanations has been offered. Hence, the addition of cash deposit of Rs. Rs. 6,00,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act is upheld. Regarding, the Time Deposit of Rs. 39,25,879/- in State Bank of Hyderabad, Rampur, Karimnagar, the appellant has submitted that he had utilized a portion of the cash deposits for making Fixed Deposits (FDs), specifically Rs. 13,38,427/- in SBI Account No. 623798487138. In my considered opinion, since addition on account of cash deposit has already been made, considering the same cash deposit in time deposit would amount to double addition. Hence, the submission of the appellant considering utilized a portion of the cash deposits for making Fixed Deposits (FDs), specifically Rs. 13,38,427/- is accepted. For the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proviso" of post amended section 149(1) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra), wherein, based on exhaustive deliberations, it was observed as 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 148A(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-2; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the Assessment Year 2017-18 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act brought into effect from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of amended Section 149 and the first, fifth and sixth provisos are extracted in the footnote". 10. This, we say so 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 Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (10) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 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 Section 148 of the Act could not have been issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribes the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per the show cause notice under clause (b) of Section 148 of the Act or the period during which the proceeding under Section 148A of the Act is stayed shall be excluded. The sixth proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act also 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 six....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would save the period of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. We are afraid we do not agree with him. Same argument was raised in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and was rejected. The Court held, with 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 i.e., 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 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. T....