SAMEER SHRIRAM DESHMUKH ,PUNE vs. ITO WD-3(3) , PUNE

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 on 17-12-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 19-03-2024.

ITA No. 553/PUN/2026

more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Ld.AR submitted that hence, the reopening is bad in law and subsequently assessment order is bad in law. Ld.AR further submitted that the information available with the AO for reopening was without any supporting document and hence, 148 is bad in law. Ld.AR submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs. 37,42,648/- without any basis. Assessee has categorically denied any cash payment. Assessee had submitted copy of confirmation of accounts, duly signed by the seller to demonstrate that no cash payment was made for purchase of immoveable property. Assessee also filed affidavit, copy of bank accounts, income tax returns, balance sheet to prove that there was no cash payment. Ld.AR further submitted that in the assessment order, AO has not referred any specific document, evidencing cash payment. Ld.AO had never provided copy of statement recorded of the partner of BGR Construction LLP, recorded during survey. Ld.AR submitted that AO had not provided copy of any impounded document along with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which is in violation of directions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Ld.AR further submitted that there is no application of mind by the AO. Therefore, Ld.AR stated that the addition may be deleted.

Quote “1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner has also impugned the notice dated 17th March 2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Various grounds have been raised but one of the primary grounds for challenging the notice under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 of the Act both

ITA No. 553/PUN/2026

dated 7th April 2022 is that order as well as the notice both mention the authority that has granted approval, is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT"), Mumbai 5 and the approval has been granted on 7th April 2022. 2. Mr. Gandhi is correct in saying that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018- 19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act both are quashed and set aside.” Unquote. 4.1. In the above referred decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the assessment year involved is A.Y.2018-19 and order udder section 148A(d) of the Act, was passed on 07-04-2022. In the case of the assessee, the assessment year is A.Y.2018-19 and order under section 148A(d) of the Act, is dated 12-04-2022. Therefore, the facts are absolutely identical. Hence, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court(supra), the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and notice under section 148 are quashed.

ITA No. 553/PUN/2026

from BGR Constructions, LLP for Rs. 86,77,448/-, whereas as per sale agreement, cost of land is Rs. 15,60,000/- and cost of construction is Rs. 33,74,800/-. Therefore, AO was of the opinion that assessee has paid cash of Rs. 37,42,648/- to BGR Constructions, LLP. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed a confirmation issued by BGR Constructions, LLP, confirming the payments as per the sale deed. Assessee also filed copy of bank statement, affidavit, income tax return, balance sheet and impugned conveyance deed to prove that there was no cash payment. Assessee categorically denied cash payment of Rs. 37,42,648/-. In the assessment order, AO has not referred to any impounded document or seized document which was found during the survey in the case of BGR Constructions, LLP, which contains alleged cash payments by the assessee. Thus, not a single document has been referred by the AO in the assessment order. The entire thirst of the AO is on the information received from ACIT, Central Circle, Pune and which has been uploaded on the insight portal of the Income Tax Department which nothing, but a small table reproduced by the AO in the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, the same is reproduced here as under: Sr. Brief description of the information Transaction value No. (in Rs.) 1 Payment made in case for transfer of 37,42,648/- property Total amount escaped assessment 37,42,648/- Thus, merely on the basis of the above referred chart, AO has alleged that assessee made payment in cash of Rs. 37,42,648/-. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the AO has failed to prove the cash payment of Rs. 37,42,648/-. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the assessment order. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 25-05-2026 TNMM

ITA No. 553/PUN/2026

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune