Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er s. 148 of the Act, beyond four years from the relevant assessment year, in a circumstance when the assessment was originally framed under s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment was found by the AO either at the time of issuance of the notice under s. 148 or at the time of framing of the re-assessment. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id. AO, NFAC in framing the impugned assessment order on the basis of notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, merely on a change of the opinion, without bringing any new tangible material or information on record. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id. AO, NFAC in framing the impugned assessment order on the basis of notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of some other Officer without having any satisfaction of his own on the subject issue. 5. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., surmises, conjectures and on extraneous and irrelevant considerations. 9(ii). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id. AO, NFAC in making addition of Rs. 24,83,907/- in the appellant's income, without properly considering and appreciating the material fact that the appellant had duly furnished all the necessary documentary evidences for establishing genuineness of the transactions of purchases and sales of shares, especially in a circumstance when the transactions of purchases and sales of shares were getting clearly reflected in the Demat Account of the appellant maintained with the renowned depository agencies and further, the entire transactions had taken place through banking channels. 9(iii). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id. AO, NFAC in making addition of Rs. 24,83,907/- in the appellant's income without first providing the appellant with any of the adverse cogent material/ documents/report/ information etc. on the basis whereof the allegations were leveled against the appellant. 9(iv). That, the learned CIT(A) g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he sides and perused the record. We observe that during the course of assessment proceedings carried out post search u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) conducting of search u/s. 132 of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to file the details of transaction relating to long term capital gain carried out during the year to which assessee made detailed reply on 01.12.2017 furnishing the copy of statement showing the details of long term capital gain on sale of shares and also furnished the supporting documents, i.e. purchase and sale bills, copies of which are placed at pages 118 to 121 of the paper book. After considering all the details, ld. Assessing Officer has not drawn any adverse inference against the assessee and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 22.12.2017. We note that from AY 2015-16 four years end on 31.03.2020. However, after the completion of four years, notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued on 30.03.2021 for carrying out the reassessment processing u/s. 147 of the Act. 7. We observe that the proviso to section 147 of the Act provides that where any assessment u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... materials based on which the said report was prepared have also not been placed on record by the Revenue. 31. As held in CNB FINWIZ Ltd. v. DCIT, (supra) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (supra), the "reason to believe" cannot be conflated with "reason to suspect" in arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner's income has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2014-15. As the concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely based on suspicion, we find that there is no tangible material to form the "reason to believe" that the Petitioner's income has escaped assessment in the present case" 10. Respectfully following the above decision and considering the facts of the case, we note that the reassessment proceedings in the instant case have been carried out beyond four years merely on the basis of 'change of opinion' and there being no reason to believe by the ld. Assessing Officer based on any material information not disclosed by the assessee in the income tax return or during the course of assessment proceedings completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer failed to assume proper jurisdiction for carrying o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot be treated as non-est and that the AO was duty bound to the issue notice u/s 143(2), is clearly supported by above cited decisions relied by Ld. AR. There is no decision cited from revenue's side to contradict these decisions. Respectfully following the view taken in the decisions quoted by Ld. AR, we are inclined to accept that the assessment order framed by AO in present case without giving notice u/s 143(2) to assessee is illegal. We accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO. The assessee's ground is allowed." (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax 11 vs. Nagendra Prasad [2023] 156 taxmann.com 19 (Patna High Court) [Opertive Paras (6), page 2)-P/3 "Where notice was issued by Assessing Officer under Section 148 requiring assessee to file a return within thirty days but return was filed after eight and a half months, since return was filed by assessee in response to said notice though delayed, there should have been a notice issued under Section 143(2) as requirement to issue notice could not be dispensed with." (iii) Shaily Juneja vs. ACIT [2025] 476 ITR 665 (Delhi High Court) [Opertive Para (13), page 6]-P/4 ....