9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is bad-in-law, illegal, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice u/s 148 along with assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated are contrary to the provisions of law including the specific provisions of section 147 to section 151 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the reassessment proceeding initiated along with assessment order passed are liable to be quashed. 3 On the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred confirming in addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 17,89,800/- on account of purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA. As per the specific information, it was observed that the assessee has made bogus purchases of Rs. 17,79,800/- from M/s. Hanuman Enterprises during the year under consideration. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was issued along with the order u/s 148A(d)(1) which was duly served upon the assessee. In response, assessee stated that the return filed u/s 139(1) may be treated as filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5. Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 17.10.2022 and asked the assessee to submit the doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the amount of Rs. 17,89,800/- being unexplained expenditure in the books of assessee for the year under consideration and the same is being added in the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE. Accordingly, he completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on total income of Rs. 95,26,480/- by adding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 17,89,800/-. 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) by filing grounds of appeal and detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (A) after going through the detailed submissions of the assessee confirmed the addition. 9. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us. 10. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2022, but the same has been issued on April 2, 2022. (Refer Page no. 14 of PB). As is evident from the send notice, it has been digitally signed on Saturday, April 2, 2022 and thus, the issue of notice u/s 148 cannot be prior to April 2, 2022. 1.4 The issue is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (2022)449 ITR 517 (Del)has held that where the date of notice u/s 148 was dated 31stMarch but it was digitally signed on 1st April or thereafter, the notice can be said to have been issued only on the date of affixation of digital signature. 1.5 In the aforesaid background, the notice u/s 148 in this case have been issued on 2nd April 2022 i.e. after the expiry of 3 years from the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party - Transporter Receipts - Copy of account of the party - Copy of bank statement reflecting payment by banking channels The Assessing Officer/CIT(A) has made/ confirmed the addition without pointing out any discrepancy in the above documentary evidences. The addition has been made/confirmed merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises without bringing on record any evidence. 4. Ground No.4 & 5 The AO has made addition ofRs.17,89,800/- u/s 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) has charged the section of addition to section 37 of the Act. The action of the CIT(A) is erroneous and without jurisdiction. The CIT(A) has not even given any show cause notice for making addition u/s 37 of the Act. The action of CIT(A) is contrary to provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts to or likely to amount fifty lakh rupee or more. 13. We observed that in the given case, the escaped assessment amount is only Rs. 17.80 lakhs. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction. Further it is brought to our notice that as per the declared income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration is Rs. 77.36 lakhs and as per the CBDT instruction no 1/2011 dated 31.03.2011, the jurisdiction lies only with the ACIT whereas the notice and assessment was completed by the ITO. Even on this count, the notice issued is beyond the jurisdiction of the present assessing officer. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the additional ground raised by the assessee. 14. We have not adjudicated the other iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
