MANOJBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI PORIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-42(1)(3), MUMBAI

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment which is bad-in-law 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the fact that the proceedings for AY 2017-18 are time barred as per section 149(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming issue of notice u/s 148 without considering the fact that the notice issued without mentioning DIN number on notice which is in violation of CBDT circular no. 19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019 Apeal 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 47,61,500/- u/s 69C of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that source for purchase of property is from explained source 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,93,250/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) without considering the fact that the difference between purchase value and stamp duty value is within the tolerance limits prescribed 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 8 CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A & 272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 9 CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, it has been mentioned by Ld. AR that since the amount involved in this case is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and more than three years period has elapsed after AY 2017-18, therefore, the notice u/s 148 could not have been issued on 20.07.2022 i.e. beyond three years as per the provisions of the Act. Ld.AR has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI v/s Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 as well as the decision of the coordinate bench in P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2017-18

We therefore do not find any reason not to uphold the argument advanced by the Ld.AR. Accordingly the notice issued under section 148 for assessment year under consideration is held to be invalid and the consequent assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the is liable to be quashed.

As the assessment orders under section 147 stands quashed, the addition challenged by the assessee on merits becomes infructuous.

Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we hereby hold that the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is invalid as the income that was stated to have escaped assessment as per the reason recorded was less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and therefore, notice u/s 148 could not have been issued beyond the period of three years as per the new law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2025. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER