Notice was issued only on 1st April, 2021, though the same is dated 31st March, 2021 and, therefore, the notice under s. 148 was barred by limitation; since the AO reopened the assessment simply on account of the fact that the assessee made a cash deposit in the bank, it cannot be said that there was escapement of income from assessment and, therefore, reassessment is not valid; that apart, notice under s. 148 issued after obtaining the approval from the Jt. CIT was not in conformity with the amended provisions of S. 151. Followed UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 340 CTR 865(SC) (AY.2017-18)
Kishan Beej v. ITO (2025) 235 TTJ 512 (Rajkot)(Trib)
S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Limitation-Information-Mere generation of notice on the ITBA screen cannot in fact or in law constitute issue of notice-Cash deposit-The AO has failed to establish with concrete information that there is escapement of income-Notice was issued after obtaining the approval from Jt. CIT and not with the approval of the prescribed authority-Reassessment notice and consequential order are quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b)]
Leave a Reply