TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es had come to a finding that, there was an escapement of income tax chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the authorities, by the impugned order have decided that it was a fit case to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act of 1961 for the relevant assessment year. Issue of limitation had been taken by the appellant before the authorities. Appellant had also taken the point of limitation and contended that the authorities wrongly assumed jurisdiction by deciding the issue of limitation erroneously before the learned Single Judge. Contention of the appellant with regard to lack of jurisdiction has revolved around the new regime of limitation that had been introduced with effect from April 1, 2021 by the substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 particularly Section 149 of the Act of 1961 by the Finance Act, 2021. In the facts of this case, the appellant had suffered a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on April 30, 2021. Such notice had been set aside by the High Court on February 22, 2022. The appellant and the department are governed by the directions of Ashish Agarwal [ 2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT ] which had issued directions relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year on April 30, 2021. Such notice had been challenged by the writ petitioner in WPA 2276 of 2021. By an order dated February 22, 2022 the High Court had squashed such notice in view of the amendment introduced to Sections 147 to 151 of the Act of 1961 with effect from April 1, 2021. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the Supreme Court in 2023 (1) SCC 617 (Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal) revived the reassessment of assesses for the period from April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 which had been struck down by several High Courts. He has pointed out that, the appellant had suffered a notice under Section 148 A (b) of the Act of 1961 on May 23, 2022. Appellant had filed a reply thereto on June 5, 2022. Appellant had suffered an order under Section 148 A (b) of the Act of 1961 on July 28, 2022. The Income Tax Department had issued notices under Section 142 (1) of the Act of 1961 on January 10, 2023 and April 6, 2023 seeking information from the appellant. The appellant had submitted his response dated April 6, 2023 on April 11, 2023. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, show-cause notice was issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Another), 2021 (6) Supreme Court Cases 771 (Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others), 2007 (1) Supreme Court Cases 732 (Arun Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others), 2004 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 48 (ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise), 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1243 (Kunal Daga vs. Union of India), unreported decision of the Single Bench in WPA 491 of 2023 (RPC Commercial LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ors) on June 15, 2023 and an unreported Decision of the Single Bench rendered in WPO 2814 of 2022 (Dilip Bhikhalal Desai vs. DCIT) on January 13, 2023. 10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that, the department received information about the appellant that high value cash transactions to the tune of Rs. 1.34 crore which was uploaded in the Insight Portal by DDIT (INV) Siliguri. The appellant had made a transaction of Rs. 1,34,00,000 in a bank account maintained with ICICI bank but failed to file return of income for the relevant assessment year although his total income exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148 A of the Act of 1961 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961. It has issued several directions which are as follows :- 28.1. The impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject-matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter. 28.2. The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under Section 148-A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis- -vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, including those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 148 dated April 30, 2021 had been quashed by the High Court on February 22, 2022, the same has to be treated and construed to be under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, for the appellants. 18. In terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and the instructions dated May 11, 2022, a notice dated May 23, 2022 had been issued to the appellant giving the materials based on which the proceedings under Section 148 had been initiated. Appellant had submitted a response thereto dated June 5, 2022. An order under Section 148A (d) of the Act of 1961 had been passed and a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued as against the appellant. 19. The impugned order dated July 28, 2022 had been passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act of 1961 and relates to the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The issue of limitation has been dealt with in the impugned order. It has been held that the case of the appellant would fall under definition of asset as laid down under the provision of Clause b of Section 149 (1) of the Act of 1961. 20. The impugned order has found that, for the relevant financial year a sum of Rs. 1,34,84,500 had been deposited with ICICI bank by the appellant in his account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exist before a Court, Tribunal or an Authority assumes Jurisdiction over a particular matter. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the Court, Authority or officer cannot act. If a Court or authority wrongly assumes the existence of such a fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. It has also observed that, the underlining principle is that, by erroneously assuming existence of such jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess. The existence of jurisdictional fact is thus a condition precedent for exercise of power by a Court of limited jurisdiction. 26. ITW Singnode India Ltd. (supra) has observed that, the question of limitation involves a question of jurisdiction. The finding of fact on the question of limitation would be a jurisdictional fact. Such a jurisdictional question is to be determined having regard to both facts and law involved therein. 27. RPC Commercial LLP (supra) is an interim order. So also is Dilip Bhikhalal Desai (supra). None of them have decided the issue raised in this proceedings finally. 28. Kunal Daga (supra) has considered an order passed under Section 148 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
