9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee against order dated 13/09/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of fictitious loss of Rs. 1,28,98,090/- through M/s. Goodluck Securities and Rs. 89,17,682/-, through M/s. APAR Finance Ltd. by trading in equity derivatives without appreciating the merit of the case establishing the involvement of the assessee in creating fictitious loss thereby claiming the benefit unlawfully? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of fictitious loss of Rs. 1,28,98,090/-, through M/s. Goodluck Securities and Rs. 89,17,682/-, through M/s. APAR Finance Ltd. 2 by trading in equity derivatives, without appreciating that the disallowance was made, after analyzing credible information received from Investigation Wing, wherein it was proved beyond doubt that manipulated transactions are being executed to avail artificial losses? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) was perverse in holding that not providing cross-examination vitiates re-assessment proceedings without considering judicial precedents such as 7 Sinte of J K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the right of hearing does not necessarily include right of cross examination and such right must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned? 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire disallowance made by AO without appreciating the fact that the right of cross examination is not an absolute right, as it was held in the case of Nath International Sales Vs UOI, AIR 1992(Del.) 295, and in the case of M/s. Meghna Towers Pvt Ltd 87 taxmann.com 329 ITAT Delhi Bench, was held that where Income-Tax Department had bused racket of bogus accommodation entries and name of assessee was discovered as one of the beneficiaries of alleged racket and further amounts were actually found in the books of assessee to be credited in the name of alleged entry operators, burden was on assessee 10 prove that it was not a beneficiary of racket and did not allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP(C) No.17639 / 2022 judgment and order dated 13/12/2024. 5. The brief facts qua the legal issue are that assessee is a partnership firm has filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 28/08/2015 declaring total income of Rs.12,99,47,790/-. 6. Before us following sequence of events have been given with regard to issuance of notice u/s.148 and various letters issued and filed before the issuance of final notice u/s.148 dated 27/02/2022. Particulars AY:2015-16 Notice u/s. 148 as per old regime (deemed to be show cause notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act). 29/06/2021 Issue Letter/deemed notice u/s. 148A(b) providing relevant material and information to the assessee. 26/05/2022 Issue Letter issued u/s. 148A(b) providing additional information. 01/06/2022 Response filed by assessee to the above issue letter. 30/06/2022 Order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 (under new law) 27/07/2022 7. At the outset, it has been submitted that as per the Revenue s admission before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, A.Y.2015-16 does not fall during the period prescribed under TOLA. The time limit for issua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16, 2016- 2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Year Within 3 Years Expiry of Limitation read TOLA for (2) Within six Years Expiry of Limitation read with TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3-2017 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2020 30-06-2021 2014-2015 31-3-2018 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2015-2016 31-3-2019 TOLA not applicable 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-17 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-18 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 31-3-2024 TOLA not applicable 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: g. Section 2 of TOLA defines specified Act to mean and include the Income-tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income T a x Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable 31.03.2022 TOLA not applicable 2016-2017 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not applicable 2017-18 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not applicable (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. 3. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the impugned reassessment action for AY 2015-16 would not sustain. 4.The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 23 July 2022 and consequential notice referable to Section 148 of even date are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Thus, the notice u/s.148 issued on 27/07/2022 is clearly barred by limitation. The reason being the test for checking the time limit and the validity of notices issued u/s.148 under new regime applicable from A.Y. 2021-22 and prior regime is, whether period of six years had expired at the time of issue of such notice or not. In the case of assessee, the period of six years had expired on 31/03/2022 and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
