MANOJ RAJPUT, DURG,DURG V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

ITA 360/RPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Manoj Rajput, the appellant, who contested the reassessment order for the assessment year 2017-18, which added an unexplained investment of Rs. 53,59,000 to his income. The reassessment was initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act based on credit entries in the appellant's bank account, which were not explained satisfactorily. The appellant argued that the reassessment was illegal due to the absence of a notice under section 143(2) and improper approval for reassessment under section 151. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the procedural lapses and the statutory requirements post the Finance Act, 2021, quashed the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469793 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agrawal, Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: PUJA BAJAJ
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Unexplained investment; Bonafide belief; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(2); 153; 132; 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.360/RPR/2023 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Rajput 20/5, Ward 03, Near Nagar Nigam Office, Motilal Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, Durg (C.G.)-490 020 PAN: ATFPK7449B .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Puja Bajaj, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2024 2 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.10.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 11.05.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: \"1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.53,59,000/- made by A.O on account of credits in bank account of appellant holding it to be unexplained investment invoking sec. 69. The addition made by the A.O and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and baseless. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.53,59,000/- made by A.O without appreciating that the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order passed by A.O is illegal ab initio void inasmuch as no notice u/s.143(2) was issued by AO. The assessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the initiation of reassessment is illegal and invalid inasmuch as approval granted u/s.151 is not in accordance with provisions of law. Consequently reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order is illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing due and proper opportunity of hearing. 5. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.\" 3 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on credible information that though there were credit entries of Rs.66.10 lacs in the bank account of the assessee but he had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2017-18, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 26.04.2023 was issued to the assessee. 3. The assessee, after persistent reminders filed his return of income in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act declaring brokerage income of Rs.12.51 lacs. It was claimed by the assessee that the balance credits in his bank account amounting to Rs.51.49 lacs (sic) (out of Rs.66.10 lacs) were sourced out of loans/advances. As the assessee had failed to come forth with any evidence to support his claim qua the source of the balance credit entries of Rs. 53.59 lacs [Rs. 66.10 lac (-) Rs. 12.51 lac] in his bank account, therefore, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023, after treating the balance amount of credit entries as unexplained cash credits u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.66.10 lacs. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter after deliberating on the facts involved in the case upheld the addition of Rs.53.59 lacs made by the A.O 4 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notices dated 01.07.2023, 22.08.2023 and the final opportunity was given on 04.09.2023 and requested the appellant to file the submission by 11.09.2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made no submission in support of grounds of appeal. So it is held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the ground. 4.1 The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits. 5. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case the AO has rightly assessed an income of Rs. 66,10,000/- under the head \"unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961\" amounting to Rs.53,59,000/-. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 53,59,000/-is hereby confirmed. 6. Ground Nos Ito 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 is general in nature. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements/CBDT instruction that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 7. Shri R.B Doshi, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the A.O. had grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction for framing assessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O. for framing the assessment suffers from two infirmities, viz. (i) that the A.O. had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act without obtaining the approval from a specified authority as contemplated u/s. 151(ii) of the Act; and (ii) that despite the assessee having filed a valid return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act the impugned assessment had been framed by the A.O. without issuing the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 8. As the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for framing the assessment based on the aforesaid grounds, therefore, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) was directed to obtain a report of the A.O. In compliance, the Ld. DR had filed a 6 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 report of the A.O, i.e. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai dated 26.07.2024, which reads as under: 7 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 8 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 9. The Ld. AR, adverting to his claim, that the A.O. without obtaining the approval of a specified authority as was statutorily required per the mandate of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act, had framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023, drawn our attention to Page 1 of the assessment order, wherein it was stated that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT, Raipur. Also, the Ld. AR had taken us through the order passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai u/s.148A(d) of the Act, dated 30.06.2022 in consequence to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agrawal, Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, wherein it was mentioned that the said order was being 9 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 passed with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT, Raipur, Page 3 to 5 of APB. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as in the backdrop of revamping of the manner of framing of assessments u/s. 147 of the Act, vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, an approval u/s. 151 of the Act, inter alia, in a case where a period of more than 3 years had lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year was statutorily required to be obtained from the authorities therein specified, viz. Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. The Ld. AR submitted that as the A.O. in the present case had obtained the approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, i.e. an authority who was not vested with any jurisdiction as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Act, therefore, the assessment so framed by him was liable to be struck down for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 10. Apropos the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for framing of the impugned assessment vide his order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023 de hors a notice u/s 143(2) issued by the A.O., the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee had complied to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 30.06.2022 and filed his return of income on 26.04.2023, Page 1 of APB., but the A.O. without issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, had thereafter proceeded with and framed the impugned assessment. The Ld. AR submitted that as the failure on the part of the A.O 10 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act goes to the root of valid assumption of jurisdiction for framing of assessment as had been emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of viz. (i) ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC); and (ii) CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC), therefore, the assessment on the count of the said jurisdictional defect could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down The Ld. AR on being confronted with the fact that the A.O in the body of the assessment order had categorically stated that as the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 26.04.2023 was not verified, therefore, it was for the said reason that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued, rebutted the same. The Ld. AR submitted that the return of income filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 26.04.2023 was received by the CPC, Bengaluru on 05.05.2023. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid claim had taken us through the screenshot of the e-filing portal of the assessee to support his aforesaid claim. 11. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative ( for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 12. Apropos the challenge thrown by the Ld. AR as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act without obtaining the approval of the specified authority u/s. 151(ii) 11 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 of the Act, we find substance in the same. Admittedly, the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act had been revamped vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The substituted Sections 147 to 159 and Section 151 of the Act applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021, are culled out as under: “Income escaping assessment- 147. If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, irrespective of the fact that the provisions of section 148A have not been complied with.”. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment 148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if required, under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the 12 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section and section 148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means,— (i) any information flagged in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time; (ii) any final objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where,— (i) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or (ii) a survey is conducted under section 133A, other than under subsection (2A) or subsection (5) of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or (iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or under section 132A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (iv) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to, the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the three assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is initiated or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned or survey is conducted in the case of the assessee or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents are 13 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 seized or requisitioned in case of any other person. Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151.” Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148- “148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the showcause notice referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where,— (a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or (b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, 14 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of account or documents, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to, the assessee. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151.” Time limit for notice- “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed 15 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 to the assessee, as per showcause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this subsection shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) of this subsection, “asset” shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of subsection (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.’ Sanction for issue of notice- “151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agrawal, Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, dated 04.05.2022, after deliberating at length on the aforesaid amended provisions had, inter alia, observed as under: “5. We have heard Shri N. Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri C.A. Sundaram and Shri S. 16 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 Ganesh, learned Senior Advocates and other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective assessee. 6. It cannot be disputed that by substitution of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act) by the Finance Act, 2021, radical and reformative changes are made governing the procedure for reassessment proceedings. Amended sections 147 to 149 and section 151 of the IT Act prescribe the procedure governing initiation of reassessment proceedings. However, for several reasons, the same gave rise to numerous litigations and the reopening were challenged inter alia, on the grounds such as (1) no valid “reason to believe” (2) no tangible/reliable material /information in possession of the assessing officer leading to formation of belief that income has escaped assessment, (3) no enquiry being conducted by the assessing officer prior to the issuance of notice; and reopening is based on change of opinion of the assessing officer and (4) lastly the mandatory procedure laid down by this Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors; (2003) 1 SCC 72, has not been followed. 6.1 Further pre Finance Act, 2021, the reopening was permissible for a maximum period up to six years and in some cases beyond even six years leading to uncertainty for a considerable time. Therefore, Parliament thought it fit to amend the Income Tax Act to simplify the tax administration, ease compliances and reduce litigation. Therefore, with a view to achieve the said object, by the Finance Act, 2021, sections 147 to 149 and section 151 have been substituted. 6.2 Under the substituted provisions of the IT Act vide Finance Act, 2021, no notice under section 148 of the IT Act can be issued without following the procedure prescribed under section 148A of the IT Act. Along with the notice under section 148 of the IT Act, the assessing officer (AO) is required to serve the order passed under section 148A of the IT Act. section 148A of the IT Act is a new provision which is in the nature of a condition precedent. Introduction of section 148A of the IT Act can thus be said to be a game changer with an aim to achieve the ultimate object of simplifying the tax administration, ease compliance and reduce litigation. 6.3 But prior to pre-Finance Act, 2021, while reopening an assessment, the procedure of giving the reasons for reopening and an opportunity to the assessee and the decision of the objectives were required to be followed as per the judgment of this Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). 17 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 6.4 However, by way of section 148A, the procedure has now been streamlined and simplified. It provides that before issuing any notice under section 148, the assessing officer shall (i) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (ii) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority; (iii) consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response to the showcause notice referred to in clause (b); and (iv) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, as to whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148 of the IT Act and (v) the AO is required to pass a specific order within the time stipulated. 6.5 Therefore, all safeguards are provided before notice under section 148 of the IT Act is issued. At every stage, the prior approval of the specified authority is required, even for conducting the enquiry as per section 148A(a). Only in a case where, the assessing officer is of the opinion that before any notice is issued under section 148A(b) and an opportunity is to be given to the assessee, there is a requirement of conducting any enquiry, the assessing officer may do so and conduct any enquiry. Thus if the assessing officer is of the opinion that any enquiry is required, the assessing officer can do so, however, with the prior approval of the specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 6.6 Substituted section 149 is the provision governing the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 of the IT Act. The substituted section 149 of the IT Act has reduced the permissible time limit for issuance of such a notice to three years and only in exceptional cases ten years. It also provides further additional safeguards which were absent under the earlier regime preFinance Act, 2021. 7. Thus, the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature and substituted with a specific aim and object to protect the rights and interest of the assessee as well as and the same being in public interest, the respective High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new provisions shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided section 148 notice has been issued on or after 1st April, 2021. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts in holding so. 18 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 8. However, at the same time, the judgments of the several High Courts would result in no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act. The Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bonafide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment was enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, under the unamended section 148. In our view the same ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021. There appears to be genuine nonapplication of the amendments as the officers of the Revenue may have been under a bonafide belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced. Therefore, we are of the opinion that some leeway must be shown in that regard which the High Courts could have done so. Therefore, instead of quashing and setting aside the reassessment notices issued under the unamended provision of IT Act, the High Courts ought to have passed an order construing the notices issued under unamended Act/unamended provision of the IT Act as those deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as per the new provision section 148A and the Revenue ought to have been permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and the defences, which may be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act and which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law. Therefore, we propose to modify the judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts as under: (i) The respective impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be showcause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The respective assessing officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the assessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a onetime measure visàvis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 19 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after following the due procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; (iv) All the defences which may be available to the assessee under section 149 and/or which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law and whatever rights are available to the Assessing Officer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open and/or shall continue to be available and; (v) The present order shall substitute/modify respective judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts quashing the similar notices issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act irrespective of whether they have been assailed before this Court or not. 9. There is a broad consensus on the aforesaid aspects amongst the learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the learned Senior Advocates/learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective assessees. We are also of the opinion that if the aforesaid order is passed, it will strike a balance between the rights of the Revenue as well as the respective assesses as because of a bonafide belief of the officers of the Revenue in issuing approximately 90000 such notices, the Revenue may not suffer as ultimately it is the public exchequer which would suffer. Therefore, we have proposed to pass the present order with a view avoiding filing of further appeals before this Court and burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals against the similar judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts, the particulars of some of which are referred to hereinabove. We have also proposed to pass the aforesaid order in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by holding that the present order shall govern, not only the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but shall also be made applicable in respect of the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts across the country and therefore the present order shall be applicable to PAN INDIA. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common 20 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under: (i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be showcause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the showcause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a onetime measure vis- àvis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assesses including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. 11. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by 21 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are under challenge. 12. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts, more particularly, the respective judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts particulars of which are mentioned hereinabove, shall stand modified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only. All these appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied by us) 14. Apart from that, we find that the CBDT vide Instruction No.01/2022 while directing implementation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal, Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, dated 04.05.2022, had while laying down the procedure that is required to be followed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officers/Assessing Officer had, inter alia, held, that if it is a fit case to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice u/s 148 after obtaining approval of the specified authority u/s. 151 of the new law. For the sake of clarity, the CBDT Instruction No.10/2022, dated 11.05.2022 (relevant extract) is culled out as under: 22 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 23 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 15. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation concur with the Ld. AR that in the present case before us for A.Y.2017-18, wherein notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2022, i.e. beyond a period of three years from the end of the assessment year, the A.O. was statutorily obligated to have obtained the approval from either of the authorities specified u/s. 151(ii) of the extant law, viz. Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or 24 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, as the A.O. had obtained the approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, i.e. an authority who was not vested with any jurisdiction as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Act (as made available on the statute w.e.f 01.04.2021), therefore, the assessment so framed by him u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023 being devoid and bereft of valid assumption of jurisdiction is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023 in terms of our aforesaid observations. 16. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and dealing with the other contention based on which validity of the assessment order has been challenged before us which, thus, is left open. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 22nd day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 22nd October, 2024. 25 Manoj Rajput Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No. 360/RPR/2023 **##SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "