TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Subsequently information was made available with the department that the assessee is a beneficiary of Rs. 44,87,500/- on account of bogus purchases from M/s. Maa Sharda Process and Rs. 74,12,500/- from M/s. Shri Vaishno Devi Exim. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 30.06.2021 after obtaining approval of the PCIT-1, Raipur. Subsequently, pursuant to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Instruction No.01/2022 of the CBDT issued on 11.05.2022 another notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 23.07.2022 after obtaining approval of CCIT by passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.05.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,27,01,710/- by making addition of Rs. 1,19,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Revenue agreed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the case of Rajiv Bansal vs Union of India. 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not considering the merits of the case and the grounds for re-assessment, and has incorrectly struck down the jurisdictional validity without examining the substantive issues involved. 5) Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that when the re-assessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice on 23.07.2022 it was within the time frame prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have placed his reliance in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). She submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit instead of quashing such re-assessment proceedings being barred by limitation. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 5,530/-. 3. The Assessing Officer [AO] issued a notice dated 01.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2015-16. Although the said notice was issued after 31.03.2021, the procedure as prescribed under Section 148A of the Act was not followed, as the notice was premised on the provisions relating to reassessment as were in force prior to 31.03.2021. 4. Thereafter, by a communication dated 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Orissa and Cuttack declining to entertain batch of petitions filed by the Assessees. The attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in Rajeev Bansal (supra) and noting the same, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: "4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Appeal against the reassessment order passed. However, he submitted that no hearing has taken place despite the Appeal being filed more than one year back. Further, he stated that notices for recovery of demand have been issued on two occasions and the Petitioner has been threatened with coercive steps. He submitted that if the present Writ Petition is allowed then, he shall withdraw the Appeal. 4. It is contended by the Petitioner that the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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;" (emphasis supplied) 7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped. 8. The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'bl....