RAM RATAN HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45 (1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Date of hearing 26.06.2025 Date of 30.06.2025 pronouncement ORDER

PER SUDHIR KUMAR JM:

1. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in assessing the income of the Assessee for an amount of Rs.79,04,910/- as against the declared income of Rs. 4,69,910/-under the assessment framed u/s 147/144/14413 of the Act.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO under Sections 147/144/1443 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the lack of proper jurisdiction, barred by limitation and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 148A, 147 to 151 of the Act.

3. That the Ld. CUT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, despite the fact that they suffer from jurisdictional defects, violate the principles of natural justice, and were issued without providing tangible material or specific information to the Appellant, thereby rendering them legally untenable. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate 3 the fact that the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act is based on mere 3 presumption, guesswork and these are not more than suspicion, making it invalid in the eyes of the law.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the reassessment order under Sections 147/144/144B of the Act passed by the Ld. AO, as there is the absence of any fresh tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Ld. AO. The reassessment proceedings were thus initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO as the sanction/approval granted under Section 151 of the 5 Act was mechanical, lacking independent reasoning and application of mind by the sanctioning/approving authority, thereby vitiating the reassessment proceedings.

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. AO in passing the reassessment order despite 6 non- service of mandatory notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), notice u/s 148 and the reassessment order on the Appellant herein.

7. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.74,35,000/-on account of cash deposits and treating the same as unexplained money us 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act is bad in law and against the facts 7 and 4 circumstances of the case. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.74,35,000/-on account of cash deposits in the bank A/e and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice.

8. That the assessment so framed and upheld and addition made suffers from perverse findings, contrary to the facts on record 8 and without providing material against the Appellant, which has amounted to violation of principle of natural justice and is also barred by limitation.

9. That the levy of interest under the Act is disputed and as such unsustainable in law besides being excessive.

10. The Appellant craves leave for adducing necessary evidence, amendments and explanations including written one to the aforesaid grounds and also raise additional grounds in the course of hearing of the appellate proceedings.

3. The brief facts of the case are the assessee filed his return of income on 20-12-2014 declaring total income of Rs. 4,69,910/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) (a) on 20-05-2015. AO had information that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 74,35,000/- in his bank account maintained with Axis Bank, Naresh Park Nagloi 5 branch during the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19-07-2022 after taking the approval of the competent authority. After considering the submissions submitted by the assessee the AO completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs. 74,35,000/- u/s 69 of the Act being unexplained cash deposits of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC Delhi who vide order dated 23-12-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.On hearing both the sides, it comes up that the assessee has raised the legal ground and stated that the notice which was issued on 16-06- 2021 u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation being an issue covered by the dispute arising out of issuance of notices under the old regime and new regime of the Act with regard to reopening assessment which was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal469 ITR 46. Ld. counsel also relied the decision of the co-ordinate bench Prabhat Kumar vs. ACIT ITA NO. 1666/Del/2024. The co-ordinate bench held as under:

S. Particulars Appellant’s Ram No case Balram . Buildhome (P) Ltd. i) Assessment Year 2013-14 2013-14 ii) First notice 24.05.2021 1.6.2021 issued u/s. 148 of the Act 7 iii) Surviving time till 37 days 29 days 30.06.2021 iv) SCN issued u/s. 28.05.2021 30.03.2022 148 A(b) of the Act in pursuane to directions of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Ashish Agarwal v) Reply filed on 15.06.2022 13.06.2022 vi) Period expired to 23.07.2022 12.02.2022 issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act vii Second Notice 27.07.2022 30.07.2022 ) issued u/s. 148 of the Act "Relevant finding of the Judgment is as under: "69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time 8 stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022.