9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015-16. 2. At the outset, is it observe by this Court that there was a delay of 71 days in filing of the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, on which the Assessee has claimed that she was not keeping well because of blood pressure and other health issues and had been staying at her maternal place, mobile number mentioned on the e-filing portal was of her husband who did not check the messages regarding the notices for the relevant assessment year; however, somehow somewhere in third week of February 2024, while going through the messages, her husband came to know about the assessment order dated 24.11.2023 u/s 147 of the Act and therefore he immediately informed the Assessee's tax Consultant, who filed the appeal, but with the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled any return of income and therefore inquiry was conducted and it was found that the Assessee has made financial transactions viz. time deposit of Rs. 86,64,850/- and cash deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- during the assessment year under consideration and thus has escaped the income of Rs. 90,64,850/-. 5. Consequently, the AO on the aforesaid information, issued a show cause notice dated 27.03.2020 u/s 148A(b) of the Act. 6. The Assessee, in response to the aforesaid notice and query raised, filed her reply and claimed that total asset escaping assessment is below than Rs. 50,00,000/- and time limit of 03 years would be applicable for issuance of notice u/s 148. She has made time deposit of Rs. 37,63,399/- with GP Parsik Sahakari Bank Ltd. on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, accepted such claim of the Assessee and ultimately made no addition on account of such deposit, which goes to show that the income escaping assessment, has not exceeded Rs. 50,00,000/- and therefore in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act; after elapsing of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, notice u/s 148 of the Act could not have been issued and therefore the action of the AO in reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, is liable to be quashed being void ab-initio. 10. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. supported the orders passed by the authorities below but not the provisions of the law and the claim made by the Assessee. 11. Heard the parties and perused the material availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
