OMKAR RAMCHANDRA VELHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.183/3, Omkar Near s Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Ganga Hospital, A Ward Dudhali, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. PAN: ASIPV6553D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Aknath Abhang – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 23/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

“1. Reopening of the Assessment under Section 147 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in initiating sec. 148A/148 proceedings vide corresponding notice dated 22.03.2023; it emerges at the outset that the only addition made herein is of Rs.20,00,000/-i.e., less than the prescribed amount of Rs.50 lakhs or more, u/sec. 149(1)(b), as amended vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021.

2. Jurisdiction: The assessment order passed by the NFAC is invalid and beyond its jurisdiction, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The entire reassessment proceedings may kindly be quashed 3. Addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on Account of Unexplained Receipts The learned AO erred in treating the amount received from Shri. Bakare of Rs 20,00,000 as unexplained credits under Section 68. The appellant states that the money received from Shri. Nikhil Vijay Bakare as unsecured loan was repaid and Affidavit regarding the same was submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the addition may be deleted.

4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, after, modify or delete the above grounds of appeal

or to add a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the Assessee.

Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 was issued on 31.03.2022 for A.Y.2015-16.

Copy of the said notice has been submitted by the ld.DR for the Revenue. Order U/s.148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022.

4.1 Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI Vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46(SC), Mr.N.Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: Quote, “a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income-tax Act, b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (1) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond sic years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re assessment for previous assessment years; f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;” Unquote. 4.2 Thus, the Ld.Additional Solicitor General of India submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for A.Y.2015-16 all the notices issued after 01/4/2021 will have to be dropped.

4.3 In the case under consideration, we have already mentioned that the initial notice u/s.148 was issued 31.03.2022, which is after 01/04/2021. Thus, as submitted by Ld.ASG the proceedings initiated for A.Y.2015-16 after 01/04/2021 needs to be dropped.

6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had considered this issue in the case of Pratishta Garg Vs. ACIT WP(C) 16878/2024 order dated 19/12/2024. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is reproduced here as under : Quote, “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying asunder: "A. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 22.06.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act, and the consequential notice 25.05.2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act; the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act in the case of the petitioner for AY 2015- 16; D. Issue any other Writ, order, or Direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and E. To allow the writ petition with cost in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent."

(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."

5. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

8.1 Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court(supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court(supra) and the submission made by Ld.Additional Solicitor General before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Order u/s.148A(d) and the notice u/s.148 are quashed.

7. In this case, more than three years have been elapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration and the quantum of income chargeable to tax represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment, is above Rs. 50 lakhs the approval is sought from the specified authority u/s.151 i.e. Pr. CCIT, Pune. Therefore, an approval of the Pr. CCIT Pune to re-open the assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act, is sought u/s.148A(d) & subsequent issue of notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015-16 in the present case, if approved.”

The same is reproduced here as under :

TDS- TDS Statement – OMKAR 1 Amount 65,00,000 194IA Payment of consideration RAMCHANDRA paid or (P) for purchase of VELMAL credited immovable property (Section 194IA)

AIR-006 Purchased immovable JT SUB 1 Amount 65,00,000 property valued at Rs REGISTRAR 30,00,000 or more HAVELI 13 PUNE

11.1 The said order u/s.148A(d) has been approved by Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-Pune.

11.2 However, on careful study of so-called information which was available in Insight Portal, anyone can understand that the said information pertains to purchase of immovable property of Rs.65,00,000/-, which has been reported by TDS Statement and by Joint Sub-Registrar, Haveli. However, erroneously the ITO-Ward- 1(1), Kolhapur recorded the satisfaction of escapement of income of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. This shows that there is no application of mind by the ITO-Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Had the ITO perused the copy of purchase agreement, he would have understood the nature of transaction. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of Smt.Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Vs. ITO 466 ITR 238 vide order dated 04.07.2024 has observed as under : “19. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find that even such reasoning is fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub Registrar's for any registration is duly transmitted to the respondents. The execution of such Sale Deed was already on record. In such a case if the respondents fail to take note of the document which was available for transmission to the respondents from the Sub-Registrar's office, in our view, the assumption of jurisdiction will have to be regarded as erroneous. In any case, we find that at the time of passing of the order dated 16.07.2021, the Sale Deeds (which were available) ought to have been taken into consideration.”

Ground No.3 (Addition of Rs.20 lakhs) : 14. In the Assessment Order, passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, for A.Y.2015-16, the Assessing Officer finally held that out of total payment of Rs.65,00,000/-, Assessee could not explain the source of Rs.20,00,000/- and hence, Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- u/s.69C of the Act. During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessee had explained that Assessee is an Engineer. Assessee had taken a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from Nikhil Bakare. Assessee had also filed copy of bank statement of Mr.Nikhil Bakare before the Assessing Officer. Assessee also filed copy of confirmation and Affidavit of Mr.Nikhil Bakare, which is duly Notarized. In the Affidavit, Mr.Nikhil Bakare had accepted that he had given Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to Assessee i.e. Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, by Cheque No.31094 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad(now State Bank of India). In the Affidavit, it is further submitted that Assessee has returned the said amount on 02.03.2016 by Cheque. The Assessee also submitted before the Assessing Officer that Cheque No.31094 was directly given to the Builder.

Ground No.2 : 17. This Ground is regarding Jurisdiction of NFAC. Since we have decided Ground No.1 and 3 in favour of assessee, we do not intend to adjudicate Ground No.2, accordingly, Ground No.2 is dismissed as unadjudicated.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 July, 2025.