Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information of cash deposits and issued a notice under section 148, to which the assessee filed a return of income.
Held
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, quashed the notice issued under section 148. Since the issue of the notice was quashed, all other grounds became academic.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under section 148 was time-barred and validly served, considering the subsequent judicial pronouncements and concessions made by the revenue.
Sections Cited
148, 149, 151A, 68, 69A, 115BBE, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271F, 2344, 2110, 2340, 139(1), 133(6), 282, 250, 144B, 147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16, dated 19.08.2025 emanating from Assessment Order 147 r.w.s 144B of the [A] Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.03.2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “General ground 1. The Ld. AO erred in assessing the total income at Rs 77,91,516 as against the returned income filed in response to notice U/s 148 of Rs. NIL. Assessment is invalid
2. The impugned assessment order and demand notice may kindly be held as invalid and it should be quashed.
3. The impugned assessment order may kindly be held as invalid and bad in law for following The notice issued U/s 148/148A is time barred 3.1. The notice issued U/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 is time barred as it ought to have been issued on or before time limit prescribed U/s 149 of the Act read with proviso Us 149. 3.2. The notice issued U's 148 is bad in law and invalid as the notice has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 3.3. The notice U's 148 issued by JAO is contrary to the scheme U/s 151A of the Act after introduction of Faceless Assessment Scheme. 3.4. In view of the above the impugned assessment order in invalid and find in law and is able to quash. Status of the appellant
4. The Ld AO erred in considering the status of the appellant as an "Association of Person" (AOP) when the appellant is credit society. The assessment order is bad in law Approval Us 151A of the Act by Ld. PCCIT and addition made is inconsistent 2 [A]
5. The order passed by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is without appreciating the fact that the approval U/s 151A of the Act, was for escapement of income of more than Rs. 50 Lacs in the form of asset while the addition has been made by doubting the source of cash deposit. The approval granted by the Ld. PCCIT and the addition made is incongruous/inconsistent and hence liable to quash Addition U/s 69A 6. The Ld. AO erred in making the addition U/s 69A of the Act of cash deposited in bank account of the appellant maintained with GS Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Lid. The addition of Rs.76,10,070 is contrary to the provisions of the law.
7 The addition made by the Ld. AO is without appreciating the fact of nature of business of the appellant which is engaged in the business of Credit Co-operative Society. The cash deposited in the bank is out of regular business transaction carried out by the appellant. The said amount cannot be added U/s 69A.
8. The Ld. AO made the addition without appreciating the fact that the appellant is registered of Credit Co-operate Society and in registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Act.
The Ld. AO erred in not following the principle of natural justice as follows:
9.1. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the appellant is governed by State Act and is managed by weaker class of the society especially for women and it is not registered on ITBA portal.
9.2. The Ld. AO erred in not serving notices by exploring other mode of service of notice U/s 282 of the Act. 3 [A] 9.3. The Ld. AO erred in not confronting the response U/s 133(6) received from GS Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The appellant is denied the opportunity to submit its counter reply.
9.4. The Ld AO erred in considering only cash deposited in bank and has ignored payment side of the bank account.
9.5. The Ld AO failed to appreciate that because of lack of knowledge and illiteracy of the management further details would not be submitted but primary responses filed before the Ld. AO were adequate to determine the nature of the business of the appellant. To make the addition of entire cash deposit without considering the expenditure side of profit and loss account and balance sheet of the appellant is contrary to the provisions of the law 9.6. The Ld. AO has made the addition only because additional details which were called could not be submitted because of lack of knowledge of the management. The addition is liable to be deleted.
9.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the material on record and upheld the Ld. AO's order without giving independent finding about merits of the case 9.8. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in making addition by applying the parameters of section 68 i.e. explaining the source and credit worthiness of customers and also holding addition U/s 69A as unexplained money. To the facts of the case section 68 and section 69A cannot be applied simultaneously The addition may kindly be deleted Levy of tax U/s 115BBE 10. The Ld. AO erred in levying tax U/s 115BBE 4 [A] Initiation of penalty 11. The Ld. AO erred in initiation penalty 271(1)(b). 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act.
Levy of interest 12. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest 11 2344 2110 and 2340 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.”
Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, as per the assessment order, Assessee had not filed return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Assessing Officer received information that Assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.76,10,070/- during the year. Notice under section 148 dated 06.04.2022 was issued for A.Y.2015-16 in the case of Assessee. Copy of the notice is at page no.80 of the paper book. Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 on 21.12.2023.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO, International Tax, Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom) order dated 13.10.2025 has held as under : 5 [A] Quote“6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates toA.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022which is at page 52 of the paperbook. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:-
Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- a………
From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.
The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
……………….. 9……………….. 10……………….
In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. TheRevenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.”Unquote. (emphasis supplied) [A] 3.1 Thus, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has quashed the notice u/s.148 dated 05.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma following the concession made by Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Since the facts in the case of present assessee are identical to the facts of the Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma(supra), respectfully following Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we quash the notice u/s.148 dated 06.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. Accordingly, Ground No.3.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed.
Since we have decided the Ground No.3.1 in favour of the Assessee, all other grounds become academic in nature, hence, all other grounds are dismissed unadjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 December, 2025. MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 12 Dec, 2025/ SGR 7 [A]