INCOME TAX OFFICER-42(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANOJ JAIN HUF, MUMBAI

The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in quashing the assessment order without making any discussion on the merit of the case.” 2. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in disregarding the ratio led down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal that all the notices issued by the Revenue between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 are deemed notices issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act meaning thereby that these are valid notices and not barred by limitation.” 3. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in holding that notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation irrespective of the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued as per provision of section 148A and well within time and valid.” 4. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition made in terms of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring that the Assessing Officer has proved the alleged transaction in the form of LTCG/STCL/STCG from an operator Shri. Naresh Jain, as nothing but an accommodation entry.” 5. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to entertain this appeal, though, the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.5/2024 Dt. 15.03.2024 but the case falls within the exceptions laid down clause (h) of Para 3.1 of the Board’s Circular No.5/24 Dt. 15.03.2024.” 3. Before us, the ld.DR has placed reliance on the assessment order while the ld.AR pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A), has rightly held the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022 to be barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and quashed the consequential impugned assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 30.05.2023.In this regard, a chronology of the notices/orders issued by the Ld. A.O. vis-a-vis the working of limitation as per the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2014-15

Time allowed to the assessee for filing response against notice u/s 148A(b) 14.06.2022 4. Reply filed by the appellant against show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. 08.06.2022 5. Surviving period left to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act i.e. under new regime as per Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) 2 days (days between 29.06.2021- 30.06.2021) 6. Time in Sr. No. 5 above extended by Ld. CIT(A) appeals in view of 4thProviso to Section 149(1) of the Act 7 days 7. The date till which a notice u/s 148 of the Act under new regime should have been issued as per Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and order of Ld. CIT(A) 14.06.2022 (08.06.2022 + 7 days) 8. Actual date of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under new regime 28.07.2022

1 It is submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly held the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022to be barred by limitation and quashed the impugned assessment order. Per contra, the ld.DR did not controvert the contentions of the ld.AR as also the chronology of notices reproduced above.

Having considered the provisions of the Act, before as well as after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the TOLA, in the P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2014-15

Since we have already upheld quashing of impugned order, we do not find necessary to decide the other grounds on merit because rest of the grounds of Revenue in appeal, are rendered academic.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2025. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)