TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147, as enacted w.e.f. 01/04/2021, as the proceedings are time barred in view of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC)[2024], therefore consequential order needs to be quashed 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 dated 25/07/2022 without specifying the DIN & Notice No as envisaged in CBDT circular No. 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice." Findings and Analysis : 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. BASIC FACTS : 4. In this case, assessee had filed original return for A.Y. 2014- 15 on 31/03/2016 declaring total income at Rs.3,77,810/-. Copy of the acknowledgement has been filed by ld. AR in the paper book. The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.148 on the basis of information obtained during search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act in the case of Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited. The Assessing Officer had received the said information from ACIT (Central Circle)-4 (4), Mumbai vide letter dated 12/03/2021. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in the order wrote that assessee has to bring on record evidence to prove that the impugned account maintained with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited does not belongs to him. In this context, we fail to understand when assessee has denied ownership of the bank account, how assessee can bring on record documents to prove the same. Rather, the Assessing Officer should have verified the Account opening form and KYC documents and those facts should have been confronted to the assessee. In this case, Assessing Officer has not brought on record the KYC documents to prove that impugned bank account indeed belongs to the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) who merely confirmed the addition. Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 31/03/2016. As per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, notice u/s.148A(b) was issued, then order u/s.148A(d) was passed on 25/07/2022 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 25/07/2022. 7. ITAT Pune in the case of DCIT Vs. Kolte Patil Integrated Townships Limited in ITA Nos. 2023 and 2011/PUN/2024 order dated 10/03/2025 has held as under : "45. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), it is clear that the time between the issue of original notice u/s 148 under the old regime and the time upto 30.06.2021 is the time limit available which needs to be added to the date on which the reply of the assessee was received. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to thi....