| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | Ruchi Bhansali |
| Answered by: | Advocate Shashi Ashok Bekal |
| Tags: | Re assessment, Reassessment |
| Date: | July 2, 2022 |
Assessee received order u/s 148A(d) of the Act within the time limit of 30 days from the date of reply given. However, in the said reply, the AO has not considered the detailed objections raised by the the assessee and also not provided all the information and documents relied upon as required by the decision of Hon’ble Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, tough it is mentioned that same has been provided to the assessee.
In the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has stated that assessee’s request for copies of documents, statements and opportunity of cross examination of a person etc. will be considered during the assessment proceedings. He has also stated that during the search of person ‘X’, which has resulted in recovery of various ledgers / note books etc. pertaining to his bank account and on the analysis of those papers, indicate that assessee has given cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- to Mr. ‘X’ in the previous years. This indicates assessee was in possession of unexplained cash and which was advanced to Mr. X for further investment and assessee has neither submitted any relevant document to substantiate the claim.
The order u/s 148A(d) is dated 28.06.2022 and notice u/s 148 is dated issued on 29.06.2022.
In the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Ld AO has stated that he has following information in the case of the assessee:
a) Information flaged by the Risk Management strategy formulated in this regards
b) Information which requires the action in consequence of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal.
This information suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) is annexed for reference.
The notice u/s 148 is issued with prior approval of PCIT on 23.06.2022. The approval attached is approval of PCIT and is a common approval given to various cases including assessee.
Kindly guide the line of action to be taken by the assessee.
Several factors need to be accounted for in determining the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the query is silent about the AY under consideration.
Furthermore, the initial burden of proof is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the money. Albeit, the Assessee should ask for a copy of the relevant documents which are in the possession of the assessing Officer which lead to the conclusion that undisclosed income was with the assessee.
The Order dated 28.06.2022 and Notice dated 29.06.2022 is bad in law basis the various some of which are inter alia highlighted below –
1. There is a settled principle of various high courts, in the matter of Section 148A of the IT Act, that the AO has to consider the reply furnished by the assessee.
2. Further, the relevant assessment year needs to be analyzed. For example if the AY is 2013-14, then the same is time barred.
3. The approval of PCIT is also bad in law on several factors.
For our assessee notice u/s 148A issued, they came to us after time period for reply is over, officer passed order u/s 148A(d), and assessee not filed original return. what is the next procedure, please let us know.
With Regards,
No order passed u/s 148A(d) after submission of reply and 1 year passed. Can it be presumed that there will be no reopening of case
Definitely. Because AO is bound to pass order under Section 148A(b) within one month+time given to assessee+7 days from the end of the month in which assessee had to file reply, other wise order would be time barred. Adv Dr Shiv Kumar Tiwari 9868091073