Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed returns for AY 2014-15 and 2016-17. Subsequently, notices u/s 148 were issued for reassessment based on cash deposits found during a search at a third-party entity. The assessee did not comply with these notices, leading to ex-parte assessments.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notices issued u/s 148 were beyond the time limit prescribed by law, citing the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, these notices were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice u/s 148 issued for reassessment was valid and within the prescribed time limit, especially considering the information originated from a third-party search. Whether the assessment should have been under Section 153C instead of Section 147.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(1), 132, 153C, 148A, 144, 144B, 69, 69A, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH
(Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti Assistant Commissioner, 27/31, 4th Floor, Bootwala Vs. Circle 23(1), Mumbai Building, Old Hanuman Lane, 113, 1st Floor, Matru Mandir, Kalbadevi 400002 Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ABXPL4596N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri. Ajinkya Vaishampayan /Revenue by: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR Date of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M]: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 24.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15 & 2016-17.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
AY 2014-15 “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.2,36,89,979/- without adjudicating all the grounds and basically based on information derived in the course of search at the place of third party can be assessed only u/s 153C of the Act.
& 1999/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 Jagdish Raghuynathji Lahoti 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not adjudicating the validity of notice issued u/s 148 r.w.s.
The notice issued u/s 148, for A.Y. 2014-15 is invalid and liable to be squashed in light of the decisions of a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and b) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Industries Vs. ACIT [2024] 160 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay) and c) The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench in the case of ITO 10(3)(1), Mumbai Vs. Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4812, 4814, 4816/MUM/2024).
The notice u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of Faceless Assessing Officer is invalid and illegal, liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay).
The action of the Ld. Assessing Officer to issue Notice u/s 148 and completing the assessment u/s 147 is bad in law as the alleged cash deposit is noticed in the search at the place of third party and cannot be assessed u/s 147 instead of section 153C of the Act. The Assessee requests to add, delete, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.”
AY 2016-17 “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. Assessing Officer at Rs. 10,99,11,581/- without adjudicating all the grounds and basically based on information derived in the course of search at the place of third party can be assessed only u/s 153C of the Act.
The notice u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of Faceless Assessing Officer is invalid and illegal, liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay).
3. The Ld. AO erred on obtaining approval from inappropriate authority i.e. of Pr.CIT-19, Mumbai, instead Pr. CCIT/CCIT/Pr. DGIT/DGIT as prescribed u/s 151 of the Act, as period of three years lapsed from the end of Assessment Year. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2023] 184 taxmann.com 159 (Bombay) and held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajeev Bhansal [2021] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC).
4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) - NFAC failed to note that the learned AO erred in making an addition on account of cash deposit of Rs. 10,94,97,411/-in the bank account with Renuka Mata Multi State urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the sources of the said cash deposited in the bank account and accordingly, addition was warranted u/s 69A of the Act.
& 1999/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 Jagdish Raghuynathji Lahoti 5. The action of the Ld. Assessing Officer to issue Notice u/s 148 and completing the assessment u/s 147 is bad in law as the alleged cash deposit is noticed in the search at the place of third party and cannot be assessed u/s 147 instead of section 153C of the Act.
Without prejudice to the above grounds the assessee submits that there are cash deposits and withdrawals in the said bank account and accordingly, only the peak credit of the cash deposits should have been as an income of the assessee. The Assessee requests to add, delete, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.”
3. Since similar issues are involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed of by a common order.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 3,22,350/- on 30.03.2015 for AY 2014-15. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, during a search and seizure action u/s. 132 carried out in the case of M/s. Shree Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative credit society Limited, it was found that the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs. 2,33,67,629/-. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued on 25.05.2022 to the assessee with respect to unexplained and unverified cash deposit of Rs. 2,33,67,629/- with the cooperative society. Since the assessee did not submit any reply to the notice, an order u/s. 148A(d) was passed on 23.07.2022 and notice u/s. 148 was also issued on the same date. Since no compliance to any of the notices was made by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings, Ld. AO finalised the assessment ex-parte u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B vide order dated 15.05.2023, after making an addition of Rs. 2,33,67,629/- u/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO the & 1999/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 Jagdish Raghuynathji Lahoti assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has set aside the order of Ld. AO for making a fresh assessment after considering the assesse’s submissions.
4.1. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the validity of the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that apart from the other legal issues, the notice u/s. 148 itself is time barred in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70(SC). In this regard the following chart has been submitted by the assessee.
& 1999/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 Jagdish Raghuynathji Lahoti
6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the matter may be remanded back to either the Assessing Officer or Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the details submitted by the Ld. AR, it is clear that the notice u/s. 148 has been issued beyond time and is, therefore, time barred as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Ld. DR has not controverted the factual details regarding issue of notice submitted by the assessee. In view of these facts, we hold that the notice u/s. 148 was issued beyond time and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee.
7.1. The assessee has also raised certain other legal grounds relating to the issue of notice by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as well as regarding the applicability of section 153C in this case due to the fact that impugned information was discovered during the course of search at the place of a third party and hence the same could be assessed only u/s. 153C of the Act.
7.2. Since we have already quashed the notice u/s. 148, the other legal contentions raised by the assessee have become academic and, therefore, are not been adjudicated upon. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
& 1999/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 Jagdish Raghuynathji Lahoti AY 2016-17
The facts and circumstances for AY 2016-17 are identical to AY 2014-15 and the relevant dates relating to the issue of notice u/s. 148 are as under:
Since the facts of this year are similar to AY 2014-15, the notice u/s. 148 for AY 2016-17 is also hereby quashed in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
Accordingly, the other legal issues raised in this year including, incorrect sanction by the PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT as prescribed u/s. 151, are rendered academic and hence are not being adjudicated upon.
& 1999/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 Jagdish Raghuynathji Lahoti
In this result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.