NISHA MUKESH KUMAR JAIN,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1, BEAWER, BEAWER
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 131/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18
Ward -01,
Beawar
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ARTPJ4770A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Prakash G Jhunjhunwala, CA (Thr. VH) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 16/07/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of present appeal, the above named assessee- appellant challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 17/01/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B
2
Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Assessment Unit,
Income Tax Department [ for short AO].
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -
“1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s. 148
after lapse of 3 years is bad in law, since had been issued without obtaining the approval from Specified authority viz. Pr. CCIT prescribed u/s.151(ii), thereby violating the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev
Bansal (167 taxmann.com 70);
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice issued u/s. 148 is bad-in-law, since had not been issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO), on violating the provision of Sec. 151A of the Act;
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard and on ignoring the adjournment application filed by the appellant,
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 69A r.w.s 11SBBE of alleged unsecured loans received from M/s Goldstone Exim Pvt Ltd and M/s. Kumkum Enterprises of Rs.84,00,000/-;
0 The Ld. CIT-(A), before confirming the addition of loans received of Rs.84,00,000/-, erred in not considering the understated vital facts, being; a) The provision of Sec.69A shall not apply, since the transactions had been recorded in appellant's books of account; b) The appellant had not received any loan from M/s Goldstone Exim Pvt Ltd during the year; c) The appellant had received the loan from M/s. Kumkum Enterprises only of Rs. 19,00,000/- during the year; d) The copies of contrary material/evidence and statements of 3rd parties and opportunity of cross examination, inspite of written requests, had not been provided to the appellant.
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the provision of Sec. 115BBE charging the tax @ 60% shall not apply, since the amendment to Sec. 115BBE made under Taxation Laws (Second Amendment), Act, 2016 shall apply w.e.f 15/12/2016. 2.1 Vide application dated 20.05.2025 the assessee has raised additional grounds in the present appeal to be decided : -
3
17/01/2025 on the following amongst other grounds each of which are without prejudice to any other:-
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s.148 after lapse of 3 years is bad in law, since had been issued without obtaining the approval from Specified authority viz. Pr. CCIT prescribed u/s.151(ii), thereby violating the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOL vs. Rajeev Bansal (167 taxmann.com 70);
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice issued u/s.148 is bad-in-law, since had not been issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO), on violating the provision of Sec. 151A of the Act;
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
At the outset of the hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the additional ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is not pressed and submitted that the additional ground no 1 raised by the assessee is going to the root of the very validity of acquiring the juri iction in the case of the assessee and therefore, the same may be admitted for adjudication. In support of the additional ground raised ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT [ 229 ITR 383. 3.1 We have heard the rival parties on the issue of admitting the additional ground by the assessee and considering the facts and 4 04.03.2021. The appraisal report in the case of Shri Shripal V. Vora was forwarded by the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bhavnagar. As per the Appraisal Report, during search operation, Shri Shripal Vora had admitted that he was indulged in providing with other associated concerns in layering, which was not carrying out any real business activities. These concerns have acted as conduit to layering of funds and were indulged in non-genuine business transaction. As per this report, the assessee was identified one of such beneficiaries who has made transactions with only Shri Shripal Vora had facilitated accommodation entries in lieu of cash/ cheque to the tune of Rs. 84,00,000/- during the relevant previous year i.e. F.Y. 2016-17. Ld. AO after going through the ITR so filed for the year under consideration, it was revealed that no such transactions were disclosed in the ITR, therefore, ld. AO noted that the same has not been offered for taxation. Thus, these transactions of Rs 84,00,000/-stands unexplained in 5 Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 and the same is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
In the assessment order ld. AO mentioned that the Several Writ
Petitions were filed by certain assessee before the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court as well as other courts, challenging the validity of the notice u/s148 of the Act. The High Courts, including Hon'ble Bombay high court decided the writ petitions. Thereafter, matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter vide order dated
04/05/2022 in the case of "Union of India &Ors. Vs Ashish Agarwal" in Civil
Appeal No. 3005/2022; as per which notice issued u/s 148 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 shall be deemed to have been issued u/s 148A of the Act as mandated by the Finance Act 2021 and shall be treated as show cause notice as per section148A (b) of the Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed to provide to the respective assesses information and material relied upon by the Revenue. In this case, as per The Hon'ble Supreme Court direction the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in due course. And the preceding order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, 1961 was pased on 17.07.2022. Pursuant to that statutory notices and the show cause notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee filed the replies, but the ld. AO found
6
Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO that the same was not acceptable and thereby concluded that the assessee the assessee has acquired the accommodation entry of Rs. 84,00,000/- from Shri Shipal Vora, and thereby the same was added as income of the assessee as per provision of section 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) reads as follows: 6. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was flagged by DIT(System) on Insightportal after 04.03.2021. As per the Appraisal Report, during search operation of one Shri Shripal Vora, he had admitted that he was indulged in providing with other associated concerns in layering, which was not carrying out any real business activities. These concerns have acted as conduit to layering of funds and were indulged in non-genuine business transaction. As per this report, the appellant was identified one of such beneficiaries who has made transactions with only Shri Shripal Vora had facilitated accommodation entries in lieu of cash/ cheque to the tune of Rs. 84,00,000/- during the relevant previous year i.e. F.Y. 2016-17. On perusal of the return filed by the appellant, the AO observed that no such transactions were disclosed in the ITR, and the same had not been offered for taxation. In this case as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction, the notices u/s.148, 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the appellant. Also, Show cause notice dt. 27.04.2023 was issued. In response to the notices and show cause notice issued, the appellant submitted her reply on 04-02-2023 through e-proceedings on ITBA. The reply of the appellant was not acceptable by the AO as she denied having any transaction with Mr. Shripal Vora. However, as per the information available, it was established that the appellant is one of the beneficiaries who had entered into sham transactions with Shri Shripal Vora in the form of accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 84,00,000/- during the year under consideration out of unexplained sources of income. The appellant was asked to show cause to explain the variation for the unexplained transactions of taken accommodation entries in lieu of bogus loans amount of Rs.84,00,000/- from Shri Shipal Vora. In spite of providing ample opportunities, the appellant had not 7 Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO furnished the details/explanation in respect of the received credits, hence, the entire amount remained unexplained/undisclosed bogus accommodation entry of the appellant. The appellant did not submit any reply response to the show cause notice issued. Hence, in absence of any explanation, the nature and source of amount of Rs.84.00.000/- remained unexplained. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings by adding the amount of Rs.84,00,00/- on account of unexplained credit in the Books as accommodation entries in lieu of factitious unsecured loan u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act for the AY 2017-18 to the total income of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee has filed this appeal.
1 On perusal of records, it is noticed that during the course of appellate proceedings, appellant had not filed or uploaded any response and written submissions in the office of the undersigned to substantiate his claim made in the statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Only he remained silent since filing this appeal to till date. The non-compliance of the appellant in response to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act on various dated is summarized as under:
Sr. No.
Notice is issuing
Date
Date fixed for Hearing
Way of service of Notice
Status
Result
1
14.08.2024
20.08.2024
It8021964@gmail.com clientsmcs@gmail.com
Delivered
No Compliance
2
27.08.2024
02.09.2024
It8021964@gmail.com clientsmcs@gmail.com
Delivered
No Compliance
3
20.09.2024
15.10.2024
It8021964@gmail.com clientsmcs@gmail.com
Delivered
No Compliance
4
07.01.2025
14.01.2025
It8021964@gmail.com clientsmcs@gmail.com
Delivered
No Compliance
2. Considering the non-compliance as detailed above by the appellant, it seems that the appellant is not interested to pursue his appeal. Therefore, it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. The appellant has not bothered to comply to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings. This shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal and/or he has no defence against the additions made by the AO. If the appellant is not availing
8
Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO opportunities given, they cannot allege contravention of principles of natural justice as held in the case of P.N. Balasubramanium (AP) 112 ITR 512. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is liable for dismissal. Such view is further supported by the following judicial pronouncements:-
1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another.
reported in 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 and 478) wherein their Lordships have held that:-
"An appeal means an effective appeal. An appeal withdrawn is an appeal non est as judicial thinking suggests. Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Mere institution followed by withdrawal would cancel the effect and result in non-prosecution and obliteration of appeal which is the same as not preferring an appeal ii) Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs.
CWT. 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instances of the assessee in default made following observation in their order. -
"If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference."
3. Under the circumstances, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal and it has nothing to say in defence of the grounds of appeal taken. Therefore, I have no option but to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of materials on record.
4. The present appeal is against the order u/s 147 rws 144 rws 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and statement of facts as well as the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer.
4.1 Ground nos. 1 & 2 are against the addition of Rs.84,00,000/- in respect of accommodation entry in lieu of fictitious unsecured loan. The appellant contended before the appellate authority that addition of Rs.84,00,000/- made by the AO was against the law and erroneous and made with a pre-determined intention to make the addition, without any independent inquiry. However, it is abundantly clear from the assessment order thatinspite of multiple opportunities afforded, the appellant has failed to explain with supporting documents/ evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions amounting to Rs 84,00,000/- made by herShri Shipal Vora and/or his associated concems namely Kumkum enterprise, Goldstone Exim Pvt Ltd The Assessing Officer was in possession of tangible information that the appellant was the beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by Shri Shipal Voraand/or his associated concerns, which were shell entities, in the form of bogus unsecured loans. Vide information u/s 133(6) of the 9 Act, he had received the appellant's bank statement which showed that the transactions were indeed carried out by the appellant with the above concerns. The appellant had not discharged the primary onus cast upon her to prove that the loans were genuine and not merely her own unaccounted income that was brought back into her books. It is trite law that only after the assessee satisfactorily discharges the onus, then the burden of proof shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the allegations made by him/her. Hence, these are merely self- serving statements without any substance. Therefore, the said grounds of appeal are dismissed.
4.2 Ground no 3 is general in nature and does not require adjudication.
As a result, appeal is dismissed.
Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as stated herein above in para 2 and 2.1. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of the additional ground raised submitted that in the present case notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 which was pursuant to the sanction of the PCIT, Udaipur obtained on 21.07.2022. Be that it may so and having noted that facts of the case read with the provision of section in the present case the sanction obtained was incorrect the issue of notice and thereby acquiring the juri iction for making the assessment is bad in law and required to be quashed. In support of this contention, he filed the following chart ; a) Return of Income u/s 139 24/03/2018 b) Deemed showcause notice u/s 148A(b) 14/04/2021 c) Material supplied by Ld.AO 27/05/2022 d) Reply to showcause notice u/s 148A(b) 09/06/2022
10
Order u/s 148A(d)
30/07/2022
f)
Notice issued u/s 148
30/07/2022
g)
Sanction obtained u/s 151
Pr. CIT, Udaipur h)
Date of Sanction
21/07/2022
i)
Return filed in response to notice u/s 148
29/08/2022
j)
Re-assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3)
17/05/2023
1 The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a compilation of case law to support his view on the issue. The index of the case laws relied upon reads as follows; 1-12 2. Shambhavee Shashikant Kadam vs. NFAC 13-22 3. ACIT vs. Manish Financial ITA No.5050 & 5055/Mum/2024 23-36 4. Ashok Amratlal Shah vs. ITO ITA No.4286 - 4288/Mum/2024 37-49 5. Keshri Rice Industries vs. DCIT 50-77 6. Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC) 78-119
11
The ld. AR of the assessee so far as the merits of the dispute has also placed on record the following evidence / records / decisions:
S.NO PARTICULARS
PAGE NO 1. Notice u/s.148 dated 30/07/2022
1-2
2. Order u/s.148A(d) dated 30/07/2022
3-6
3. Notice u/s.148A(b) dated 27/05/2022
7-11
4. Reply to show cause filed by the appellant on 09/06/2022
12-20
5. Notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)
21-22
6. Adjournment application filed by the appellant before Ld. CIT(A)
23-26
7. Ledger account of M/s Gold Stone Exim Pvt Ltd and M/s
Kumkum Enterprises
27-28
8. Bank statements of the assessee
14-20
9. I.T. acknowledgement and Computation of income
29-32
10. Notices issued by Ld. AO
33-40
11. Submission filed by the appellant before Ld. AO
41-47
The ld. DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). On the legal arguments raised by the ld. AR of the assessee the ld. DR submitted report of the ld. AO which reads as under : The appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 against the order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act 1961 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi vide appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10256908 DATED 17.01.2025. In this regard, brief facts of the case are as under:- (1) The Assessee filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur against the appeal order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of National faceless
12
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10256908 Dated
17/01/2025. (2) The Assessee has filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 24.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 6,86,520/-. Thereafter proceeding u/s 148A(d) in consequence to Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 04.05.2022, order u/s 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT, Udaipur vide letter
No. Pr.CIT/ITO(Tech.)/Udaipur/2022-23/1537 dated 21/07/2022 and notice u/s 148
of Income Tax, 1961 was issued on 30/07/2022. (3) The Assessee filed return of income against notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2017-
18 on 29.08.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 6,86,520/-.
(4) Thereafter order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of I.T. Act. was completed by the National faceless asstt. Centre on 17.05.2023 at the income of Rs. 90,86,520/- after making addition on account of accommodation entry in lieu of fictitious unsecured loan of Rs. 84,00,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
(5) The Id.CIT(A), NFAC, vide his order dated 17.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. During the appellate proceeding the assessee was non compliance of afforded opportunities provided by Ld. CIT (A).
(6) The Notice u/s 148 was issued after approval from Specified authority as per instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 (copy of the same is enclosed herewith) viz. Pr. CIT Udaipur prescribed u/s 151(i) vide order No. Pr.CIT/ITO
(Tech.)/Udaipur/2022-23/1537 Dated 21/07/2022.(copy of the same is also enclosed for kind perusal)
(7) The proceeding u/s 148A(d) consequence of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated. 04.05.2022, order u/s 148A(d) & Notice u/s 148 were issued as par law.
(8) In this case the Ld.CIT (A) was allowing adequate opportunities to the assessee on various dates. The Ld. CIT(A) fixing the date for filing submissions on 14.08.2024, 27.08.2024, 20.09.2024 and 07.01.2025. All the notices were duly served on the registered E-mail ID of the assessee. The assessee responded for adjournment only but the assessee not submitted any details till the date of appeal order. The assessee's grounds that the Ld CIT (A) erred in passing the order Ex-
Party without allowing adequate opportunity is totally wrong and baseless.
(9) During the course of assessment proceedings, AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee, but the assessee not filed any reply of the SCN. The AO has made rightly addition on account of accommodation entry in lieu of fictitious unsecured loan of Rs. 84,00,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s, 115BBE of the Act for the A.Y.
2017-18. (10) Further the assessee have not complied the noticed issued during the course of appellate Proceeding. This shows that the assessee is not interesting in pursing his appeal and he has no defence against the addition made by the Α.Ο.
13
The ld. DR also filed a paper book containing the following evidence in support of the contention raised by the ld. AO;
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and the orders of the lower authorities. So far as the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee thereby the assessee challenges the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 17/01/2025 on the ground that the notice issued u/s.148 after lapse of 3 years is bad in law, since had been issued without obtaining the approval from Specified authority viz. Pr. CCIT prescribed u/s.151(ii), thereby violating the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOL vs. Rajeev Bansal (167 taxmann.com 70). Apropos to the dispute the facts as emerges from the record is the ld. AO vide letter dated 25.06.2025 through ld. DR submitted that in the present case the approval S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Synopsis 1-2 2 Copy of 148 A(d) order 3-6 3 Copy of Notice issued u/s 148 7 4 Copy of approval u/s 151(1) of Specified Authority 8 5 Copy of assessment order 9-19 6 Copy of order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 20-26 7 Copy of Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 27-31
14
The bench noted that on the identical facts the co ordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in ITA no. 1406/MUM/2024 has decided the issue raised by the assessee as to acquiring the juri iction to issue notice u/s. 148 without proper approval and thereby having similar fact the assessment was quashed and in that the bench has given the following finding;
8. We find that in a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), dated 03.10.2024, Hon'ble Court after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) had dealt with the issue in respect of sanction of the specified authority and concluded that TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. According to the Hon'ble Court, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is that if the time limit of three years from the end of the Assessment Year falls between
20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 then, the specified authority u/s.151(i) has extended time till 30.06.2021 to grant the approval. According to the Hon'ble Court,
Assessing Officers were required to issue the re-assessment notice u/s.148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Act read with TOLA.
All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside. Hon'ble Court had elaborately dealt with this issue in Part E of its decision in para 73 to 78 which are extracted below:
73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessees from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below:
15
74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime:
(i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint
Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner.
75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus:
(i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakha: (0) reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior
16
Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the juri iction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limita prescribed under Section 151 affects their juri iction to issue a notice under Section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre-conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20
March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under. Section 151(1) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three years time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime cun grant sanction till 30 June
2021......
81. This quote in Ashish Agrawal (supra) directed the Assessing Officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessee concerned.
Further, it directed the Assessing Officers to issue a notice u/s. 148 of the new regime "after follouing the procedure as required u/s. 148-A Although this quote waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s.1484(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authenty according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an 17
Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO order us. 148Aldi or Issuing a notice u/s 148 These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified u/s.151 of the new regime r.w. TOLA, where applicable.....
114 ....... TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an Assessment
Year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority u/s 151() has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval;....”
8.1. From the above, we note that in para 73, in the table last two rows relate to provisions of Section 151(i) (ii) of the new regime prescribing the time limit as well as the specified authority. In para 75, it is very categorically mentioned by the Hon'ble Court that after 01.04.2021, in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime. This abundantly brings clarity on the aspect of obtaining approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 which are fall out of the decision in Ashish Agrawal
(supra). In para 77, objective of section 3(1) of TOLA is mentioned which is to relax the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021. Thus, the objective is specific for providing temporal flexibility. In para 78, the same has been explained by an example taking
Assessment Year 2017-18 which also in specific terms mentions that the authority specified u/s.151 (i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30.06.2021. Thus, while concluding in para 81 on the issue obtaining approval, Hon'ble Court has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s.148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s.148. According to the Hon'ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. 8.2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the Id. Sr. DR and keeping the same in juxtaposition with the above observations and findings of the Hon'ble Court, we note that the issue we are presently addressing raised before us is not on the aspect of "when" for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s.148 but on the aspect of "by whom" it ought to have been issued. Ld. Sr. DR has contended that there is hierarchical escalation vis-à-vis obtaining approval for issuing notice u/s. 148. In this respect, Hon'ble Court has very categorically held in para 75 that the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime for the notices issued in terms of Ashish
Agrawal (supra) after 01.04.2021. Reference by ld. Sr. DR to Section 149(1)(a) deals with time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148. Contention of the Id. Sr. DR that 18
Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO there is no hierarchical escalation for obtaining prior approval for issuing notice u/s.148 is not in coherence with the guidelines mandated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as enunciated above. Repeatedly, Hon'ble Court has stated including by way of illustration that TOLA extends time line from the old regime which survives making the notice validly issued subject to the approval requirements of Section 151 under the new regime. Accordingly, the prior approval requirement is mandated under the section 151 of new regime.
8.3. In the present case, the relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the time limit of three years lapsed on 31.03.2021 which falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 during which provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) would apply. Accordingly, the amended provisions under the Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for granting of approval till 30.06.2021 by the specified authority. Thus, on the above stated facts and law, in the present case, three years had lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year when the order u/s.148A(d) and notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.07.2022. In the present case, since the notice u/s. 148 and order u/s.
148A(b) have been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, case of the assessee falls within the provisions of section 151 (ii) of the amended law whereby the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director
General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Contrary to this requirement, the approval obtained is by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai.
Accordingly, since a proper sanction by the specified authority had not been obtained for issue of notice u/s. 148 under the applicable provisions of law, said notice is invalid and bad in law.
8.4. Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and the uncontroverted facts as stated above and the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal (supra), we hold that sanction by specified authority has not been obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions contained in section 151 of the Act under the new regime, since notice u/s.148 has been issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant
Assessment Year. Accordingly, the said notice issued is invalid and thus quashed.
Resultantly, the impugned re-opening proceedings so initiated and the impugned re-assessment order passed thereafter are also quashed.
Since the facts of the present case of the assessee is similar to the case that has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai wherein the bench has in detailed examined the issue and held that the since the 19
Bansal (Supra) and Ashish Agarwal (Supra) we quash the notice issued u/s. 148 as bad in law and thereby the consequential assessment as bad in law and thereby quash the same.
As we have quashed the assessment order considering the juri iction issue based on the legal ground raised by the assessee the other grounds either that of the merits or that on the other legal aspects of the matter are rendered academic not requiring any finding thereupon.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2025. ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
20
1. The Appellant- Nisha Mukesh Kumar Jain, Bhilwara
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1, Beawar
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 131/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत