TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ONATION OF DELAY I, VINOD OJHA S/o. Damodhar Prasad Ojha, aged about 43 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under. The CIT (A) order in respect of the Assessment year 2016-17 dated 03-05-2024 was received on 06-05-2024, and the same could not be filed as the papers were misplaced by one of our office staff, wherein the accountant entrusted with the job to ensure statutory works has left my organization and further to submit that, my wife was hospitalized, I was attending her into hospital, accordingly, the appeal could be filed on 25-11-2024 with the delay of 117 days as the appeal was due for filing on 31-07-2024 and instead of that the same has been filed on 25-11-2024 In view of the above reasons, the delay may please be condoned and the appeal may please be considered due to circumstances which were beyond the control of the Assessee. In view of the above reasons, the delay may please be condoned and the appeal may please be considered due to circumstances which were beyond the control of the Assessee. What is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Thanking you Place : Hyderabad Date : 24.12.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have concluded that the initiation of impugned assessment itself is bad in law as the same is against the faceless scheme and thus the notice issued U/s 148 of the Act by the JAO itself is bad in law. 5. The Ld. CTT(A) erred in not considering that (CBDT) vide notification No. 15/2022 dated 28.03.2022, and notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 that it is mandatory to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under Section 147, 148 and 148A of the Act in a faceless manner 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the appellant is a commission, cheque discounting agent, thus, estimating at higher rate of 29.26% of the total gross collections is bad in law 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not telescoping the cash receipts and the cash paid towards purchase of property of Rs. 10700000/-and has erred in taxing the same under 115BBE of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal ground in respect of improper sanction and non-compliance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act. The approval of L.d. Pr. CIT in the present case is bad in law and leads to invalid initiation of assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sec. 148 (two times) for the same assessment year. 17. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that issue of Notice under sec. 148 dated: 28-05-2022 without DIN, invalidates the very initiation of the Assessment Proceedings under sec. 147 of the Act, as per the circular no 19/2019 dated: 14th August, 2019. 18. The Appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of appeal." 7. The assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/sec. 148 of the Act on the ground that the notice was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in contravention of the National Faceless Assessment Scheme as notified by the CBDT vide Notification No.15/2022 dated 28.03.2022 and, therefore, the said notice is not valid and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the assessee has relied upon various Judgments. The assessee has also challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of want of valid approval u/sec.151 of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued u/sec. 148 of the Act w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the earlier notice was substituted by notice u/sec.148A(b) dated 27.05.2022 which is placed at Page-37 of the paper book. Thus, the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned in the said notice that in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Ashish Agarwal, the earlier notice issued on 30.06.2021 is deemed to be notice issued u/sec. 148(b) of the Act. It is manifest from this notice issued by the Assessing Officer that the notice u/sec. 148A(b) was issued by treating the old notice dated 30.06.2021 as the notice issued under the new scheme of re-assessment as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 on 28.07.2022 and these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short "JAO"] and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer [in short "FAO"]. Accordingly, in view of various Judgments including Judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar vs., The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar in W.P.No.344 of 2025, Order dated 24.04.2025 which has been considered in the recent decision by us in the case of ITO, Ward-1, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered by this Tribunal in series of decisions and in case of M/s. Pitti Holdings Put. Ltd., Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Central Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad, in ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019 vide order dated 08.10.2025 has considered this issue in Paras-5 to 5.1 as under : "5. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representative and Learned Departmental Representative on this issue which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO 156 taxman.com 478 and submitted that the impugned reassessment order is not valid and liable to be set aside. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, at the outset we note that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (supra) [As per Corrigendum dated 10th October, 2025 the correct citation is Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar vs., The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar in ITA.No.1259/Hyd./2024] has considered an identical issue vide order dated 04.09.2025 in para Nos. 9 to 16 as under : "9. We have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS [[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom)], Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)], Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)], and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXS [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)], where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION [(2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)], Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5)[[(2024) SCC OnLine Guj 4012], Jharkhand High Court in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken on many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of the matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to the Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ough to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTAN. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX [(2025)170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)], on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in nc following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws. ... ...... 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses-public without any benefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should be paid by the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so grant liberty to the parties to get this appeal revived, if, in case the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitate to modify this order. 5.1. In the case in hand it is not disputed that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer. By following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah dated 24.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.344 of 2025 as well as the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act as well as the decision of co-ordinate bench as well as u/s. 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee by the JAO are not valid and liable to be set aside. We order accordingly." 8. In case of the assessee when the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has quashed the initiation of proceedings u/sec. 147 of the Act, then, it would vitiate the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Following the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pitti Holdings Put. Ltd., Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and as per sec.151, the approval of the Specified Authority as specified therein should be obtained. According to the assessee, under New Scheme of re- assessment proceedings, the Specified Authority u/sec. 151(ii) of the Act, in case an assessment is reopened after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General are the Specified Authority(ies). Since in the present case, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec. 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 after approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad, the said approval is not in accordance with provision of sec. 151 (ii) of the Act and consequently, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and assessment order passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act dated 02.03.2024 is illegal, void abinitio and liable to be quashed. 7.1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assessing Officer issued original notice u/sec.148 of the Act for the assessment year in question on 23.04.2021 and as per new scheme of re-assessment procedure, the same has been treated as notice issued u/sec. 148A of the Act in light of decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Rajeev Bansal (supra) held as under : "In assessee's case from the perusal of para 3 of the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2016-17 we notice that the same is issued with the prior approval of Pr.CIT-19 Mumbai accorded on 29.07.2022 vide reference No.Pr.CIT-19/148/2022-23 and this fact is not contravened by the ld DR. For AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151 (ii) of the Act i.e. the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr. CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed." 7.3. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal, void abinitio and thus, we quash the final assessment order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer." 13. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following various Judgments. We further note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd., vs., DCIT 300 Taxman 295 (Bom.) has decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee when the approval was not taken as per the new scheme of reopening while issuing notice u/sec. 148 after 01.04.2021. Though the learned DR has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella vs., ITO, Ward(2), Surendranagar (supra), however, in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Vegetable Products Ltd., [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC), we follow the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court as well as the earlier decision of this Tribunal and accordingly held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 without approval of the Competent Authority u/sec. 151 of the Act which is CCIT as against the approval of Pr. CIT taken by the Assessing Officer, is not valid and liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2016-17. · information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated in this regard suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051563421(1) dated 29/03/2023 and annexed herewith for reference, 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. LAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA CIRCLE 1,KARIMNAGAR Document 3 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred by initiating proceedings u/s 147of the Act, simply relied on the SFT information shown in the verification module of Insight Portal at the time of reopening, however, either no information gathered or not conducted any inquiry further in order to form an honest and a reasonable belief t....