NEW RAJDHANI HONDA, KENDRI, RAIPUR, RAIPUR V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 473/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves New Rajdhani Honda, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, and the Assessing Officer concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the illegality of the assessment order due to the absence of a notice under section 143(2) and the improper issuance of a notice under section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to Notification No. 18/2022. Additionally, the assessee contested the additions made under section 69A regarding unexplained cash deposits and other income, which were claimed to be business receipts. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the issuance of notices and the opportunity given to the assessee to respond, leading to the decision to quash the assessment order and remand the case for fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35696 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd., Tukojirao Holkar vs CIT, New Dewan Oil Mills Vs. CIT, CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya, CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd, M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, MM Wonder Park Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: VEEKAS S SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 208; 69A

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. 473/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 New Rajdhani Honda, near Thakur Dev Chowk, At Post Village Kendri, Abhanpur, Raipur 493661, Chhattisgarh PAN No. AANFN3738M .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-1(1), office of the Income Tax, Officer, Ward -1(1), Civil Lines, Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Veekas S Sharma, CA. Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 29.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 2 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), Delhi, dated 29.08.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 03.03.2023 for the assessment year 2018- 19. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed is illegal, bad-in-law and void-ab- initio inasmuch as the Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not issued, whereas, the Learned A.O. had duly mentioned in the assessment order vide para 5 that the income of the assessee is assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the assessment order may kindly be declared to be illegal and quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed is illegal, bad-in-law and void-ab- initio inasmuch as the assessment proceedings were culminated from notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2022 which ought to have been issued by \"Faceless Assessing Officer\" was in fact issued by \"Jurisdictional Assessing Officer\" which is violative of and contrary to Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, therefore, it is prayed that the assessment order may kindly be declared to be illegal and quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O. has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 1,01,59,420/- by invoking section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as the conditions precedent for invoking Section 69A are not fulfilled inasmuch as the assessee was not the owner of money aggregating to Rs. 1,01,59,420/- as the assessee is merely a 3 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 sub-dealer and sum of Rs. 1,01,59,420/- represented the sale proceeds of vehicles sold in the ordinary course of the business, on which the assessee was merely entitled for certain commission on sale and thus acted as a pure agent, hence, the additions were made and confirmed by the Learned CIT appeal is bad in law and contrary to the facts and law and liable to be deleted. It is prayed that addition of Rs. 1,02,58,244/- may kindly be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,01,59,420/- made by the Learned A.O by invoking Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the cash deposit made by the assessee as alleged unexplained money u/s 69A, inasmuch as the cash deposits were made from explainable sources, hence, the addition so made is bad-in-law and liable to be deleted. It is prayed that the addition of Rs.1,01,59,420/- made by the Learned A.U and confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi may kindly be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 98,824/- made by the Learned A.U on account of Insurance claim received by the assessee from Bharti Axa General Insurance by treating the same as business receipts, hence, the addition so made is bad-in-law and liable to be deleted. It is prayed that the addition of Rs.98,824/- made by the Learned A.U and confirmed by the CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi may kindly be deleted. Appeal. 6. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, it is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi is not justified in passing the order and confirming the addition in an exparte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi is liable to be declared as illegal and bad-in-law. It is prayed that the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi may kindly be declared as illegal and bad-in-law on account of violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal” Also, the assessee firm has raised before us additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: 4 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 “Additional Ground of appeal No.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 144B r.w.s. 144 is illegal, bad-in- law and void-ab-initio inasmuch as the Standard Operating Procedure laid down by the National Faceless Assessment Centre vide file No NaF AC/Delhi CIT- 1/2022-23/112/92 dated 03.08.2022 has not been adhered to as no physical letter at the latest address of the assessee was sent through speed post where the assessee was not responsive as mandated vide Para No. 0.3 on page here of the said Standard Operating Procedures, therefore, the passing of assessment order in disregard to the Standard Operating Procedure renders the assessment order illegal and unsustainable particularly in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd. reported in(2011) 330 ITR 491 (Chhattisgarh). It is prayed that the assessment order passed in violation of Standard Operating Procedure laid down by NFAC may kindly be declared as bad-in-law and illegal and consequential enhancement of Rs. 1,02,58,244/- made to the total income may kindly he directed to be deleted Additional Ground of Appeal No.2: \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 144B r.w.s. 144 is illegal, bad-in- law and void-ab-initio inasmuch as the provisions laid down w/s 148A(b) has not been adhered to, meaning thereby the proceedings initiated against the assessee is in gross violation of statutory prescription not less than of seven days' notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice u/s 148A(b)has been issued on 20th March 2022 and the assessee was granted time for uploading the reply to the said show-cause notice on the e-portal of the Department up to 26th March, 2022 thereby providing only six days to respond to the said notice, whereas the statute prescribes that 'not less than seven days' shall be provided to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice, thus, the entire proceedings are void-ab- initio and liable to be quashed.” 2. As the assessee firm by raising the additional grounds of appeal has assailed the validity of the order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 03.03.2023, inter alia, for the reason that the same was passed in violation of “Standard Operating Procedure” (SOP) laid down by NFAC, and thus, was bad in law and illegal, the adjudication of which would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. 5 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 3. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information, viz., (i) that the assessee firm had during the subject year made cash deposits in its current account with ICICI bank: 1,01,59,420/-; and (ii) the details divulged payment to sub-contractor u/s 194C of the Act : 98,824/-, but had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration, thus, called upon it to put forth an explanation as to why notice u/s 148 of the Act be not issued to bring to tax its income chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment. As the assessee firm failed to respond, therefore, the AO after passing order under clause (d) of the section 148A of the Act, dated 29.03.2022 issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. 4. As the assessee firm in the course of the assessment proceedings failed to respond to the notices which were issued by the A.O. u/s 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the latte was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. The A.O., observed that though the assessee firm had income from multi facet sources, viz., (i) income that had sourced the cash deposits in its bank account with ICICI Bank : Rs.1,01,59,420/-; and (ii) income received from M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited (TAN: BLRB06855C) : 98,824/-, but it had failed to file its return of income. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of both aforementioned amounts, viz., (i) addition u/s 69A of the Act of the unexplained cash deposits in the bank account: Rs.1,01,59,420/-; and (ii) contract receipts from M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited: 98,824/-, and determined the income of the assessee vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 03.03.2023 at Rs.1,02,58,244/-. 6 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter was constrained to proceed with and adjudicate the issues as were raised by the assessee before him vide an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the AO, upheld his order. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: “5. DECISION Thus, it may be seen from the table given above that the appellant had been given numerous opportunities (Four) by way of issuing notices u/s. 250 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as detailed above but, the appellant had neither responded to the notices nor filed any written submission in compliance to such notices issued. Thus, the appellant has failed to substantiate through written submissions/ documentary evidences any of the grounds of appeal which he has filed in form 35. 5.1 It is a well settled dictum of law \"VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT which means law will help only those who are vigilant. Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim once right she/he must be watchful of his/her rights. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are eligible to the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. In this connection, the various judicious decisions of the Hon'ble Courts may be cited. In the case of TukojiraoHolkar vs CIT (223 ITR 480) the Hon'ble M.P. High Court held that, \"If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.\" Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Dewan Oil Mills Vs. CIT reported in (2008) 2961TR495 (P&H) had returned the reference unanswered, since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477, 478), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that \"appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same\". 7 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd on 02.09.2011 in ITA No.798 of 2009 held that a negligent appellant should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference, otherwise it would amount to giving premium to the appellant for his negligence. When the appellant is non cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness of his claim. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.2006/Del/2011 dated 19.12.2011) has dismissed the appeal for non- attending hearing inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 5.2 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 may further be referred to wherein the Hon’ble Court clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case when the appellant does not wish to prosecute the proceedings. Relevant extract of the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai in the said case is extracted below: “(i) -------------------------------------------------- (ii) While not inclined to depart from the view taken by the two High Courts, reference must be made to Sunderlal vs. Nandramdas AIR 1958 MP 260, where it was observed that though the act does not give any power of dismissal, it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal therefore, is an inherent power, which every tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nallia Thampy vs Shankar (1984(Supp) SCC63) In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority, which has duty to decide a lies between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or judicial or Quasi-Judicial Body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complaint who had instituted the proceedings That is not a function of the Court or for that matter of a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the absence of the complaint, therefore, the court will be well within the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. 8 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 (iii) Accordingly, though the rule conferring power on the tribunal has been struck down, one cannot altogether lose sight of the rule that every court or tribunal has an inherent power to dismiss a proceeding for non- prosecution when the petition/appellant before it does not wish to proceed the proceeding. In such a situation unless the statute clearly requires the court or tribunal to hear the appeal/proceeding and decide it on merits, it can dismiss the appeal/proceeding for non-prosecution. The power must be exercised judiciously and after taking into consideration all the fact and circumstances of the case.\" 5.3 In view of the facts of the appellant under consideration and various judicial decisions cited above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is not willing to pursue the appeal and reserves his rights merely by filing of the memo of the appeal. Thus, after filing the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts, the appellant has chosen not to attend the hearing, file any written submission or documentary evidences in support of the grounds of appeal and therefore, it is apparent that it does not want to pursue the appeal with any seriousness. In view of this, I am left with no option but to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on records after due consideration. 6. Findings: 6.1 Findings regarding grounds of appeal no.1: The ground of appeal is general in nature and therefore requires no adjudication. 6.2 Findings regarding grounds of appeal no.2: From the perusal of the materials available on record and the Assessment Order, I find that the appellant has submitted no explanation/documentary evidences as to how the AO has erred in making the additions. No evidence has been furnished to contravene the findings of the Assessing Officer during appellate proceedings. The onus was on the appellant to explain the cash deposited of Rs. 1,01,59,420/- in its current account in ICICI Bank Limited before the Assessing Officer, which he has failed to do so. Several opportunities at various stages have been provided to the appellant as has been discussed in Para 2 of the assessment order, in response to which the appellant has filed no replies. When the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits in his own bank account to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, then it was open to the AO to hold it as income of the appellant. This view is supported by numerous judicial pronouncements 9 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 In the case of Roshan di Hatti vs CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and Kale khan Mohammed Hanif (SC) vs CIT 50 ITR 1, the Supreme Court has held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, can not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and not further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. On the issue of burden of proof the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.)is very relevant in which it was laid down that the assessee is expected to establish. the identity of his creditors, the capacity of the creditors to advance money and the genuineness of the transaction. In the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the Calcutta High Court held that it is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transaction. Only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department. The Madras High Court in the case of V. Datchina murthy v. Asstt. Director of Inspection [1984] 149 ITR 341 (Mad.) held that it has been a long accepted principle of income-tax law that an assessee is obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits in his accounts and in the absence of satisfactory explanation on his part, the assessing authorities can very well proceed to treat the amount of cash credits in question as representing the taxpayer's income. The Kerala High Court in the case of ITO v. Diza Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2002] 120 Taxman 539 (Ker.) held that it is clear that the burden is on the assessee to offer a satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of the amount found credited in the books of the assessee. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. R.S. Rathore [1995] 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) held that while explaining the various credits and investments, it is possible that the assessee may be successful in explaining some of them, but that does not by itself mean that the entire investments has to be considered as explained. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation is offered by the assessee. The Calcutta High Court in the case of C. Kant & Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal.) held that in the case of cash credit entry it is necessary for the assessee 10 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 to prove not only the identity of the creditors but also to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transactions. In view of the above discussion in Para 4,5 and 6, it is clear that the appellant has submitted no documentary evidences to establish as to how the AO has erred in making the additions. No evidence has been furnished to contravene or repudiate the findings of the Assessing Officer during appellate proceedings also. The appellant has further also not submitted any documentary evidences to substantiate the grounds which the appellant has taken in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned facts and discussions made in Para 4, 5 and 6, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer. In view of these, the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the Appellant are dismissed. 6.3 Findings regarding grounds of appeal no.3: From Para 2 of the assessment order it is seen that the appellant has been given several opportunities, but the appellant has failed to reply to any of them. The Assessing Officer in the order dated 03/03/2023 has stated that \"Even during the 148 proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to the notice u/s.148 dated 30.03.2022, notices u/s.142(1) dated 17.09.2022 & 06.10.2022, Reminder Letter dated 28.10.2022, SCNs u/s. 144B(1) (ix) & u/s. 144B(1)(xii) (b) of the Act dated 17.11.2022 824.01.2023 even though the notices, letter & SCNs were successfully delivered on the registered email Id of the assessee. The assessee has not responded till date even to the centralized communication sent by speed post on 25.01.2023 and delivered to the assessee on 04.02.2023 at its address.\" From the above it is clear that numerous opportunities have been provided to the appellant and therefore the ground of appeal that proper opportunity has not been provided is not tenable and hence the same is dismissed. 6.4 Findings regarding grounds of appeal no.4: The appeal in this case has been disposed off, hence the ground for stay of demand is now infructuous, and hence the same is being dismissed. 6.5 Findings regarding grounds of appeal no.5: The ground of appeal is general in nature and therefore requires no adjudication. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 11 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the learned 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 that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 8. Shri Veekaas S Sharma, learned authorized representative (for short, Ld. AR) for the assessee, at the threshold, submitted that as the AO had failed to adhere to the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act, therefore, the assessment order passed by him u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 03.03.2023 was liable to be struck off. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though section 148A(b) of the Act contemplates that the AO shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 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 notices is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of application in this behalf, as to why a notice u/s 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). The Ld. AR submitted that the AO in the present case had issued “Show cause notice” (SCN) u/s 148A(b) of the Act, dated 20.03.2022, Page No. 1 & 2 of APB, wherein the assessee firm was called upon to put forth an explanation on or before 26.03.2022 as to why the notice u/s 148 of 12 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 the Act be not issued to him. The Ld. AR, submitted that contrary to the mandate of section 148A(b) of the Act, which contemplates allowing of a time period of not less than seven days, the A.O. in the case of present assessee had effectively allowed to him a time period of only 5 days to explain that as to why the notice be not issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act. The Ld. AR, submitted that as the time period allowed to the assessee firm for putting forth an explanation to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148A(b) of the Act was not in conformity with the mandate of law, therefore, due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction the assessment framed by him vide order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 03.03.2023 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count. The Ld. AR to support his contention had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MM Wonder Park Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, passed in Writ Petition (T) No.172/2022, dated 17.06.2022 (copy placed on record). Alternatively, the Ld. AR assailed the validity of the assessment order on the basis of his other multi-facet contentions, viz., (i). that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO; (ii) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 which ought to have been issued by the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (FAO) was in fact issued by “Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” (JAO), and thus, was violative of and contrary to the Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022; and (iii) that the conditions precedent for invoking section 69A of the Act were not satisfied in the preset case. Apart from that, the assessee had placed his contentions as regards the merits of the case. 13 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (“D.R”, for short) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. As the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 03.03.2023, inter alia, for the reason that the time limit allowed by the AO u/s 148A(b) of the Act was not as per the mandate of law, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. 11. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, section 148A(b) of the Act contemplates that the AO shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 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). Admittedly, as per the mandate of Section 148A(b) of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the A.O. to allow to the assessee a time period of not less than 7 days from the date on which such notice is issued to explain as to why based on the information shared with him a notice u/s 148 of the Act be not issued to him. However, we find, that in the present case, the A.O vide notice u/s 148A(b) of the 14 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 Act, dated 20.03.2022 by calling upon the assessee firm to show cause on or before 26.03.2022 that as to why notice u/s 148 of the Act be not issued to him had effectively allowed to him a time period of only 5 days to file his explanation. 12. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, dated 20.03.2022 is not found to be in conformity with the mandate of law. We find, that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MM Wonder Park Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, passed in Writ Petition (T) No.172/2022, dated 17.06.2022, had observed, that the A.O. had issued a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act giving just 7 days’ time to the assessee/petitioner to file its reply. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that the time period of 7 days provided to the assessee vide notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was unreasonably short, and thus, violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned case had quashed both the order passed by the A.O. u/s 148A(b) of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 05.04.2022, and set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee/petitioner. For the sake of clarity, the observations of Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the above referred to documents/Annexures and other material available with due care. 6. From perusal of the documents/Annexures, it appears that the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed with regard to a transaction which occurred in the financial year 2014-15 after serving a notice dated 25.3.2022 (Annexure 15 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 P1) and giving a mere 7 days' time to the Petitioner/assessee to furnish a reply to the said notice. The time granted to the Petitioner/assessee to submit reply to the said notice appears to be unreasonable short and the Petitioner/assessee cannot be blamed for not being able to file the reply within such a short period. Thus, it appears that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner/assessee appears to be reasonable. Thus, the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 5.4.2022 (Annexure P3) issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and the Respondents are directed to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner/assessee and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed” (emphasis supplied by us) 13. As the facts and issue involved in the present appeal before us, i.e., allowing of unreasonably short period of time by the AO vide notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act remains the same as was there before the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, we respectfully follow the same. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations quash the order passed by the A.O. u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29.03.2022 and also notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.03.2022, and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. with a direction to afford a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm as per the mandate of section 148A(b) of the Act, and thereafter, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 14. The additional ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. 15. As we have set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to re- decide the case after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, therefore, we refrain from dealing with the other grounds of appeal based on which 16 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for framing the assessment as well as the merits of the addition has been assailed by the Ld. A.R before us, which, thus, are left open. 16. The grounds of appeal No. 1 to 6 along with the additional ground of appeal No.1, are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid observations. 17. The ground of appeal No. 7 being general is dismissed as not pressed. 18. Resultantly, the appeal by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 12th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 12th December, 2024. *Hem 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, 17 New Rajdhani Honda Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur ITA No.473/RPR/2024 // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "