TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bylon Group who are engaged in hotel sector. During the survey proceedings a hard disk was impounded from the premises of hotel Babylon Continental, Raipur according to which they have received and made huge cash payments in connection with its investment in Babylon Continental and sale of immovable properties during the financial years 2013-14 to 2016-17. On further examination of the data extracted from the hard disk it was found that hotel Babylon Continental has made huge cash payments during the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16 against the immovable properties purchased from various persons. The assessee Damanjeet Singh Oberoi, one of the seller of the immovable property had received huge cash payment amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer thereafter verified the return of income filed by the assessee and noted that the assessee has sold certain land for which he has received certain amount through banking channel which are reflected in the bank statement, however, the cash received as per the ledger was not reflected in his books of account. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged cash receipt of Rs.1,00,00,000 from Babylon Gr.; without giving opportunity to cross examine the third party (Mr.Atul); in absence of this, addition made u/s 69A as unexplained money is merely on presumption & surmises is invalid & unjustified and is liable to be deleted" Gr.No.4 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, AO has erred in applying higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE on the alleged unexplained money u/s 69A on the basis of ledger account found at third party premises (Babylon Gr.); AO has not brought any material evidence on record for the alleged cash receipts, and therefore, application of sec 115BBE is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be deleted." Gr.No.5 "The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing." 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Jain vs. ITO reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 101 (Del) submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that for assessment year 2015-16, notices issued under section 148 on or after 1-4-2021 would ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein he made addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the re-assessment proceedings as well addition on merit. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 on 26.07.2023 is a valid notice or not. 11. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Jain vs. ITO (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that for assessment year 2015-16, notices issued under section 148 on or after 1-4-2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. The relevant observations of Hon'ble High Court read as under: 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 30.06.2022 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and further proceedings relating to the said notice in respect of assessment year [AY] 2015-16. 2. The petitioner is an individual, and filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 18.03.2016, declaring income of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained in the tabulation below: Assessment year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-17 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 201516, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;" 8. In view of the above concession, the impugned notice and the proceedings relating thereto are required to be set aside. We may also note the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. CBDT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025, decided on 02.04.2025. The said appeal arose from orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, since revenue had categorically made a concession before Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/ 301 Taxman 238/ 469 ITR 46 (SC) that for assessment year 2015-16 it would drop all notices issued under section 148 after 1-4-2021, impugned notice dated 5-4-2022 and all consequential orders/notices would not survive. The relevant observations of Hon'ble High Court read as under: "2. The present Petition has been filed primarily, with a prayer to quash and set aside (i) the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the Notice issued under Section 148, both dated 5th April 2022 (Exhibit B and C); (ii) the reassessment order dated 27th May 2024 passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act; (iii) notice of demand of even date raised for an amount of Rs. 4,43,17,910/- for the Assessment Year ('A.Y.') 2015-16 (Exhibit E1 and E2); as well as (iv) the recovery notices issued for recovery of demand dated 2nd July 2025 and 9th September 2025 (Exhibit G and I) and the consequential penalty notices and orders. 3. At the outset, it has been fairly stated by Mr.Gandhi, that the Petitioner herein has filed an Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (2) Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-2018 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered. 12. In light of this order, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the Appeal filed by him before the CIT (Appeals) within a period of 2 weeks from today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason, the present order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside, then the Appeal filed by th....