ITO, WARD-2(2), KALYAN vs. HARESHKUMAR JETHANAND TIKMANI, ULHASNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4843/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 December 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 60 Lakhs, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal also stated that if the AO finds the appeal covered by exemptions in the circular, they can approach the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19/07/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to AY 2015-16. The core issue revolves around the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of extensions and amendments to related laws.

What were the issues?

Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between 01/04/2021 and 30/06/2021, are valid considering the extension/relaxation granted under the TOLA and the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 149,Section 151,Section 3(1),Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Ghind, A/R
Hearing: 19/12/2024Pronounced: 19/12/2024

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 19/07/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to AY 2015-16.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) Justified in quashing the Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the case of the assessee by relying on its finding given in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors in Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 2 Whether a plain and literal construction of Section 3(1) of the TOLA permits that in all cases where "such action could not be completed/complied with within the Limitation period, provided under the specified Act, such action could be completed/complied with during the extended period granted under Section 3(1) of TOLA in accordance with the law as it stood prior to 31/03/2021? 3 Whether on a plain and literal construction of Section 3(1) of TOLA it would follow that in all cases in which Notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued between 01/04/2021 and 30/06/2021 as a result of the extension/relaxation granted under the TOLA, it would be Sections 147, 148, 149 and 15l as they stood prior to their amendment by way of the Finance Act, 2021, that would govern such Notices?

4 Whether section 6 of the General Clauses Act would allow notices to be issued and proceedings instituted under the unamended Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 15l since by operation of S. 3(l) of TOLA a power/right of action is accrued in favour of the revenue to re-open within an extended time-period where the time limit for such action expired between 20/03/2020 and 31/03/2021?

5 Whether the power to take such action under the unamended S. 147, 148, 149 und 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 saved by S.3(I) of TOLA can be said to be obliterated by Finance Act, 2021 when there is no such intention to destroy the old rights and liabilities kept alive by TOLA for a limited period of time?

6 Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Lat CITIA) has erred in not appreciating that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has vide order dated 31-08-2022 in the case of Salili Gulati Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Cirele-49(1) Delhi and Ors. (cited supra) has upheld the department's stand that the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal SC 543 read with the time extension provided by Taxation and Other Lows (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short TOLA) allows extended reassessment notices to travel back in time to their original date when such notices were to be issued and then new Section 149 of the Act is to be applied at that point.

7 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble High Court has erred in disregarding the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) dated 04/05/2022 that all the notices issued by Revenue u/s 148 between 01/04/2021 30/06/2021 are deemed notices issues u/s. 148A (b) of the Act meaning thereby that these notices are valid notices and not barred by limitation.

8 The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated & that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

9 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal

.”

3. A perusal of the grounds read with the assessment order show that the tax effect is less than Rs. 60 Lakhs and, therefore, this appeal has to be dismissed in light of the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September, 2024. 3

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →