Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged a reassessment order for AY 2017-18, arguing that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the income escaping assessment (Rs. 35,21,970/-) was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for reassessment initiated beyond three years under Section 149(1)(b). Separately, the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for AY 2020-21, made under Sections 69A (unexplained income of Rs. 1,35,85,000/-) and 69C (unexplained expenditure of Rs. 1,58,682/-) based on seized diaries, which the CIT(A) deleted following the assessee's consistent accounting method.
Held
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as the escaped income of Rs. 35,21,970/- was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, thus failing to meet the conditions for reassessment beyond three years under Section 149(1)(b). For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Sections 69A and 69C, as the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's 'net negative incremental peak' calculation for other years, which showed a nil peak for AY 2020-21.
Key Issues
1. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years are valid if the income escaping assessment is below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the deletion of additions made under Section 69A and Section 69C based on seized material is correct when the Assessing Officer has accepted a consistent method of 'net negative incremental peak' calculation for other assessment years.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 149, 149(1), 149(1)(b), 149(1A), 151, 69A, 69C, 115BBE, 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
per Explanation 2 to Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act, ‘asset’ shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account which exceeds in the form of asset valued at Rs. 50,00,000/- or more or has escaped assessment. Whereas, as per the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act the income escaped assessment is Rs.35,21,970/- which is below Rs.50 lakhs, therefore the assessing officer is not correct in invoking the provisions of section 148A of the Act. Thus, Ld Counsel requested to quash the reassessment order as without jurisdiction and relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench Tribunal in the case of Pankaj Chandrakant Pimple -Vs.- International Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 169 (Mumbai-Trib.) and Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Mohd Athar Anjum Vs. ACIT reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 337 (Del).
Per contra Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted before us copy of the approval for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act which reads as follows:
“With respect to the applicability of section 149(1A) of the Act, income which has escaped assessment should be more than Rs.50,00,000/- (as referred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and should be represented in the form of assets or expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion or an entry or entries in the books of account. In the case of the assessee, income chargeable to tax to an event or occasion are Rs. 82,32,264/-represented in the form of an asset from F.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017- 18 which is more than Rs.50,00,000/- in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the Act and the details of the same is as under:
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT
Unaccounted cash receipt Unaccounted Cash payment F.Y. A.Y. As per Amount As per seized Amount Amount of seized (decoded) material (coded) (decoded) total material transactions (coded) 2014-15 2015-16 5000.00 5,00,000/- - - 5,00,000/- 2015-16 2016-17 18901.00 18,90,100/- 15547.94 15,54,794/- 34,44,894/- 2016-17 2017-18 - - 35219.70 35,21,970/- 35,21,970/- 2017-18 2018-19 1800.00 1,80,000/- 5854.00 5,85,400/- 7,65,400/- Total 25701.00 25,70,100/- 63491.05 56,62,164/- 82,32,264/-
Hence, in view of the above, in the case of the assessee, section 149(1)(b) of the Act is applicable and instant case is covered u/s 149(1A) of the Act. Further, in view of above discussions and on the basis of seized materials, it is found that there is an escapement of income of Rs.35,21,970/- for the A.Y. 2017-18 in the hand of the assessee. Therefore, this is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s, 148 of the Act. … … … … … … … … 5. Conclusion: a. As the search action was initiated in the case of the assessee under section 132 and after the 1st day of April, 2021, therefore the provisions of section 148A are not applicable in this case. b. On the basis of seized materials, it is found that there is an escapement of income of Rs.35,21,970/ represented in the form of asset for the AY 2017-18 in the hand of the assessee. Therefore, this is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. c. In the case of the assessee, income chargeable to tax to an event or occasion are Rs.82,32,264/- from FYs. 2014-15 to 2017-18 which is more than Rs.50,00,000/- in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the Act, thus in the case of the assessee is covered u/s 149(1A) of the Act and the section 149(1)(b) of the Act also is applicable. d. Since three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, thus as per provisions of Section 148 r.w.s 151, the specified authority to grant approval is DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad.
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 5 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT
Hence, necessary approval to initiate proceedings u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act has to be obtained from DGIT(inv.), Ahmedabad for AY 2017-18. ” 5. Thus Ld Senior DR Shri Abhijit appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested to sustain the same and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the Paper books and case laws relied by the assessee. It is seen from record that the assessee in his submission before Ld CIT[A] clearly objected that the escaped assessment is Rs.35,21,970/= only which is less than the prescribed limit of Rs.50 lakhs, thus the notice u/s.148A cannot be issued beyond three years and the assumption of jurisdiction itself is bad in law and therefore requested to quash the reassessment proceedings. The Ld CIT[A] wrongly held that the as per seized material income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs is found to have escaped assessment, the assessee raised similar objections during the reassessment proceedings which was disposed off the same by the Ld AO. It is thereafter the AO passed the reassessment order on 09- 06-2023 and assessed the total income at Rs.75,74,350/- and demanded tax thereon.
6.1. It is undisputed fact that the reassessment is initiated beyond three years from the end of Asst. year 2017-18 and the value of the ‘asset’ in this case is Rs.35,21,970/= which has escaped assessment, which is much below Rs.50 lakhs as per Explanation 2 to Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act. Whereas the AO’s contention that the assessee’s case is covered u/s. A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 6 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT 149(1A) of the Act as per which the income chargeable to tax to an event or occasion are Rs.82,32,264/- from Financial Years 2014-15 to 2017-18 which is more than Rs.50,00,000/- in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in section 149(1)(b) of the Act also is applicable. This argument of the Revenue is also no more res-integra since the same were considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd Athar Anjum Vs. ACIT reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 337 (Delhi) which has followed the case of M/s. L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [W. P. (C) No. 4845 of 2025, dated 17-4-2025] wherein it discussed the relevant provisions in detail as follows:
“ … 17. Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act contains a non obstante provision, which mandates issuance of notice, for an assessment year falling within the period as referred to in clause (b) of Section 149(1) of the Act, notwithstanding that the income escaping assessment in the assessment year does not exceed the value as mentioned in that clause provided the following conditions are cumulatively satisfied: (a) that the income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment in more that one previous years amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more; and (b) that the said income, which has escaped assessment is represented by (i) an asset; or (ii) or expenditure in relation to such event or occasion has been made or incurred, which amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more.
In the present case, the aforesaid conditions, as set out in Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act, are not satisfied.
We also consider it apposite to refer to an order passed by this Court in L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [W. P. (C) No. 4845 of 2025, dated 17-4-2025]/ 2025:DHC:2690-DB where this court had held as under:
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 7 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT
"10. There is no cavil that the income alleged to have escaped assessment for the AY 2018-19 is under Rs. 50 lakhs. However, it is contended that the same would not preclude the AO from issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as cumulatively the income that is alleged to have escaped assessment is to the extent of 0.73 crores which is in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs. Mr Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has referred to Section 149(1A) of the Act in support of his contention.
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section 149 of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 149 of the Act is set out below:
"149. Time limit for notice. - (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more:] (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), has escaped the assessment and the investment in such asset or expenditure in relation to such event or occasion has been made or incurred, in more than one previous years relevant to the assessment years within the period referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), a notice under section 148 shall be issued for every such assessment year for assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be."
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 8 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT
It is apparent from the opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act that a notice under Section 148 of the Act for an assessment year cannot be issued beyond the period of three years unless the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act are satisfied. Thus, one of the said conditions is that the income alleged to have escaped assessment exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs or is likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. Undisputably, the threshold amount of Rs. 50 lakhs of the income that has escaped assessment or is likely to escape assessment, is to be reckoned in respect of the specified assessment year. We say so because the conditions as set out in clause (b) of Section 149(1) of the Act are required to be read in conjunction with the opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act. The same is also made amply clear by use of the non obstante clause in Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act. A plain reading of Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act indicates that the condition of a minimum amount of Rs. 50 lakhs of income escaping assessment, may be satisfied by the cumulative amount that has escaped assessment or is likely to escape assessment in respect of more than one assessment year exceeding the said amount. However, the same is subject to the condition that the income chargeable to tax is represented in the form of an "asset" or "expenditure in relation to an event or occasion". Thus, in cases where the income that has escaped assessment is represented by 'an asset', notwithstanding that the said asset is on account of income that escaped assessment for more than one previous years, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied, if the value of the asset exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. The same would hold true if there is an expenditure in relation to an 'event' or 'occasion', which exceeds the value of Rs. 50 lakhs. In this case as well as notwithstanding that the expenditure has been incurred in different previous years, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied if the cumulative value of the expenditure exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, provided that the same is related to an event or occasion." 20. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this court in L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited (supra). The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act; the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the impugned assessment order dated 21.03.2025 are set aside.
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 9 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT
As clarified by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case the conditions as set out in clause (b) of Section 149(1) of the Act are required to be read in conjunction with the opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act. The same is also made amply clear by use of the non obstante clause in Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act. A plain reading of Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act indicates that the condition of a minimum amount of Rs. 50 lakhs of income escaping assessment, may be satisfied by the cumulative amount that has escaped assessment or is likely to escape assessment in respect of more than one assessment year exceeding the said amount. However, the same is subject to the condition that the income chargeable to tax is represented in the form of an "asset" or "expenditure in relation to an event or occasion". Thus, in cases where the income that has escaped assessment is represented by 'an asset', notwithstanding that the said asset is on account of income that escaped assessment for more than one previous years, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied, if the value of the asset exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. The same would hold true, if there is an expenditure in relation to an 'event' or 'occasion', which exceeds the value of Rs. 50 lakhs. In this case as well as notwithstanding that the expenditure has been incurred in different previous years, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied if the cumulative value of the expenditure exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, provided that the same is related to an event or occasion. Therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedent and the escaped income is Rs.35,21,970/- which is less than Rs.50,00,000/-, therefore the notice issued u/s.148 beyond three years period is invalid in law, consequently the A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 10 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT reassessment order is liable to be quashed and the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in is hereby allowed.
Revenue as against the common appellate order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:
1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,85,000/- on account of unexplained & unaccounted income as per provision of Section 69A of the Income tax Act. 2) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,58,682/-on account of unexplained & unaccounted expenses as per provision of Section 69C of the Income tax Act. 3) "The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal
."
11. For the Asst. Year 2020-21 the AO made addition on account of unexplained income u/s.69A of Rs.1,35,85,000/- based on the ledgers 'Maniratna Mahendra bhai’ and expenditure u/s.69C of Rs. 1,58,682/- of the Act based MCS Flat Account appearing in the A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 11 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT diaries seized from the residence of Shri Prakash M Sanghvi. Aggrieved against the additions the assessee was in appeal before CIT[A] who has deleted the additions by observing as follows:
“… 12.1. I have considered the assessment order passed by the AO and the submissions made by the appellant. The AO has made addition for entries appearing in the ledgers named Maniratna Mahendrabha & MCS Flat A/c in the diaries seized from the residence of Shri Prakash M. Sangnvi, The AO has made addition by considering the debit and credit entries in these ledgers
12.2. The AO has, while making the addition for ledgers 'Maniratna Mahendrabhai & MCS Flat A/c added the amounts written on both the credit side and debit side separately without giving benefit of telescoping to the appellant. The amounts noted on the credit side of the diary have been added to the Total Income as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and the entries on the debit side of the diary are treated as Unexplained Income by the AO and added to the total Income u/s 69A of the Act.
12.3. The appellant has made submissions for the ledgers Maniratna Mahendrabhai & MCS Flat A/c for the current year similar to the submissions made for AY 2017-18. The appellant has contended that the ledgers Maniratna Mahendrabhai & MCS Flat A/c do not belong to him and has filed submissions stating that no corroborative evidence is brought on record by the AO to establish that the ledger pertains to the appellant.
12.4. As regards the payments recorded in the ledger MCS flat the appellant submitted that the source of payments stands duly recorded in the seized diaries. The explanation has been accepted by the AO in the case of other assessees of Ratnamani Group Following the rule of consistency, I agree with the contentions of the appellant in respect of the ledger MCS Flat that the same is a debit account and the source of payments in the said ledger is already recorded in the diaries seized from the residence of Shri Prakash M. Sanghvi. In view of the above, the addition made by the A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 12 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT
AO on account of ledger MCS Flat A/c of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- is hereby deleted.
12.5. As regards the addition on account of entries appearing in the ledger "Maniratna Mahendrabhai the appellant submitted that the AO should have adopted a consistent approach and made addition on the basis of net negative incremental peak as has been done by the AO in AY 2017-18.
12.6. I have already confirmed the addition on account of entries appearing in the ledger 'Maniratna Manandrabhai herein above while dealing with the appeal for AY 2017-18 and held that the ledger pertains to the appellant
12.7. The addition in A.Y.2017-18 was made by the AD by adopting net negative incremental peak for the ledger Maniratna Mahendrabhai, It is observed from the assessment order for AY 2017-18 that the AO has giver benefit of telescoping to the appellant and made addition only in respect of net negative incremental peak for each year. The AO has calculated net negative incremental peak for A.Y 2015-16 to 2020-21 and reproduced the same in show cause notice issued for A.Y 2017-18. The AO has also reproduced the calculations of year-wise net negative incremental peak in the assessment order for AY 2017-18 and made addition in respect of only the negative incremental peak
12.8. Thus, the addition for the year under considerations also required to be made following the method adopted by the AO for all the other years i.e. A.Y 2015-16 to 2020-21. The appellant has submitted the working for net negative incremental peak for all the assessment years including A.Y 2021-22. The appellant had submitted the said working before the AO and the AO has accepted the working and passed the assessment orders for A Y 2015-16 to 2020-21 on the basis of such working submitted by the appellant before the AO From the calculations reproduced by the AO and the working submitted by the appellant for the ledger Maniratna Manendrabhai it is seen that the net negative incremental peak for A.Y 2021-22 is NIL as per the working submitted by the appellant Therefore, following the method adopted by the AO for AY 2015-16 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi vs. DCIT to 2020-21. since the incremental net negative peak for the AY 21- 22 is NIL, the addition on account of Unexplained Income u/s 69A of Rs.85,000/- and Unexplained Expenditure u/s.69C of Rs.1,58,5682/- is hereby deleted Thus, the grounds of appeal nos. 2 to 3 are allowed.
12. Ld. D.R. for the Revenue in support of the grounds relied upon the order passed by Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. further could not place on record, whether any appeal is filed by the Revenue for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on this addition. Further the calculation submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the working, there is nil negative incremental peak for the Asst. Year 2020-21. Thus we do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the assessee and the same are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.