TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be issued beyond 3 years only if income escapement is above 50 lacs, in fact of present case the impugned notice issued for AY 2017-18 is for income escaped below 50 lacs i.e Rs 37,91,000/-, therefore reopening is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that Ld. JAO issued reopening notice beyond period of three years, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General however approval was taken from PCIT-20. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that Ld JAO have no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice u/ s 148A(b), pass order u/s 148A(d) and issue Notice u/s 148 as same had to be done in faceless manner. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the fact that the assumption of Ld. AO in issuing notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without mentioning the DIN Number on notice itself which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce cannot be treated as addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO also asked assessee to furnish source of funds for purchasing the Property. The assessee responded to notices and made submission. The Ld.AO after considering the submissions passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making following addition: i) Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - 26,46,000/- ii) Unexplained investment u/s 69-11,45,000/- Wherein total income was assessed at Rs 42,64,940/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee furnished additional evidences against which remand report was called for. It is submitted that, the jurisdiction assessing officer accepted the contention of the assessee and passed the remand report on 25/11/2024 by stating that the addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) was to be deleted. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) however, while passing the impugned order remanded the issue to the Ld.AO by observing as under :- "In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant AMINA ASLAM QURESHI (PAN:AACPQ2403R), against the order u/s.147r.w.s.144r.w.s.144B of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 issued in the new regime on 29/07/2022 is bad in law as tests and time line enunciated under the new provisions has not been complied with for completing reassessment procedure as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal(supra). 4.4. On the other hand the Ld.DR relied on orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before this Tribunal. 5. For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider legal contention raised by the Ld.AR with regard to the notice under section 148 dated 29/07/2022 being time barred as per the new provisions of section 149(1)(a) as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal(supra). For sake of convenience section 149 is reproduced as under - Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, -- (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 assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of notice under the unamended law did not expiry on 30/06/2021. It is noted that, as on the issuance of notice under the old law, three years expired. Admittedly TOLA does not apply to assessment year 2017-18 as per following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal(supra): "19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID- 19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income-tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re assessment for previous assessment years; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra)." 5.2. As per the table reproduced in the above observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court, time limit for issuing notice under the new provision of section 148A, read with TOLA expires on 30/06/2021 for assessment year 2017-18. This is further clear from the following observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court: 105. A direction issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 is an order of a court. The third proviso to Section 149 of the new regime provides that the period during which the proceedings under section 148A are stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded for computation of limitation. During the period from the date of issuance of the deemed notice under section 148A(b) and the date of the decision of this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the assessing officers were deemed to have been prohibited from passing a reassessment order. Resultantly, the show cause notices we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA 108. The Income-tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals were issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old regime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. The effect of creating the legal fiction is that this Court has to imagine as real all the consequences and incidents that will inevitably flow from the fiction. Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 5.3. Thus the revenue should have issued notice under section 148 as per the new regime on or before 30/06/2021, after complying with the procedure as per new provision under section 148A of the Act. However, in the present facts of the case, the notice under section 148A(b) was issued to assessee on 17/05/2022, subsequent to which the assessee submitted response on 02/06/2022, and order rejecting the objections was passed on 29/07/2022. The notice under new provisions under section 148A was issued on 29/07/2022, which is beyond the period of limitation as specified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal(supra). 5.4. Be that as it may, in case the notice dated 29/07/2022 is still considered to be valid since the time limit as per old law still did not expire, then monitory limit as specified under section 149(1)(b) would have to be satisfied. On this aspect, Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal(supra) observed as under: 54. The proviso to Sec....