U B FOODS PVT. LTD,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD1(2), , JALGAON

This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.05.2024 emanating from the separate assessment orders under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 25.05.2023 for the A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 26.07.2022 was issued to the Assessee for A.Y.2015-16. In response to the notice u/s.148, Assessee electronically filed Return of Income declaring total income at Rs.5,73,050/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) has mentioned in the assessment order that Assessee Company had made purchases from entry providers. It is further mentioned in the assessment order that during the course of action in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar, they have admitted providing entries through their proprietary concerns Parth International, Ridhi Sidhi Impex etc. It is alleged in the assessment order that Assessee is one of the beneficiaries. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee has filed elaborate reply along with Audit Report, Purchase Ledger, Bills of Ridhi Sidhi Impex, Bank Statement etc. The Assessing Officer also obtained Bank Statement of Assessee independently. The assessing Officer after considering reply of the assessee made addition of Rs.31,29,03,768/- u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee filed Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) u/s.246A of the Act. Assessee had raised various Legal 3 ground in appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee raised the Additional Legal Ground which is as under : “1] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 for A.Υ.2015 - 16 issued on 26.07.2022 i.e. after a period of six years from end of A.Y.2015-16 was barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal [301 Taxman 238] and hence, the notice u/s 148 and the corresponding asst. order u/s 147 may be declared as null and void in law.”

Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., [229 ITR 373 (SC)].

Ld.AR initially made submission on the Additional Legal Ground. Ld.AR submitted that Notice u/s.148 dated 26/07/2022 is 4 Time Barred as it is issued beyond the permissible time. Ld.AR also [A] submitted that the Notice u/s.148 is without DIN. Ld.AR filed copy of the Notice u/s.148. Ld.AR relied on the decisions filed in the case law paper book.

We have perused the Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 26/07/2022. It is a fact that Notice u/s.148 of the Act, for A.Y.2015- 16 was issued after 01/04/2021. The date 26/07/2022 of issue of Notice u/s.148 is also mentioned in the First paragraph of the Assessment Order. Thus, admittedly notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015- 16 was issued on 26.07.2022.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f)which reads thus:-

As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.

The above referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayuresh Kumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held as under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd (supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 201516, all the notices issued on or after01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and therefore, nothing further is required to be 6 adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021.

It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.”Unquote. 9.1 Similarly, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue 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.

Respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court(supra), Hon’ble High Court(supra), we hold that notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015-16 dated 26.07.2022 is bad in law. Accordingly, the assessment order is also bad in law.

In this case, it is also important to mention that nowhere Assessing Officer has mentioned that statement of Ashokkumar Gupta and Manojkumar were provided to the Assessee or not! Also, 7 it seems that opportunity of cross-examination has not been provided.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Legal Ground raised by the Assessee is allowed.

Since we have decided the Additional Legal Ground in favour of assessee, we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds, accordingly, Ground No.1 to 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed as unadjudicated.