Section 148 notice for pre-2021 AYs beyond un-amended six-year limit barred by first proviso to Section 149; fifth/sixth provisos exclude 148A time only for amended 3/10-year limits, not extending first proviso restriction. (38 words)

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 Centre, Delhi, dated 11/04/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 21/12/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the Section 348 notice, which is unequivocally time-barred under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. This section mandates that for reassessments Initiated beyond three years from the relevant assessment year, the escaped Income must exceed Rs. 50 laiths. Despite an initial alleged credit of Rs. 51,98,200/, the final addition was only Rs. 30,17,000/-, falling below this statutory threshold. Consequently, the notice lacks jurisdiction and renders the entire reassessment void ab initio, further compounded by the initial estimation being based on erroneous aggregation and double-counting

2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer was in violation of the 'e-Assessment of income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022', and hence both the notice and the reassessment order are vitiated in lew.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,17,000/- made under Section 63A of the Act by the Assessing Officer without any independent verification or reconciliation. The authorities failed to refute the explanations provided with cogent evidence rendering the addition unsustainable.

4. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the appellant's detailed submissions, explanations, and supporting documentation, including the only bank account statement, a mortgage deed evidencing receipt of Rs. 3,75,000/-, and proof of business activity under Section 44AD, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

5. The learned CIT(A) further erred in denying the appellant a personal hearing and proceeded to decide the appeal solely based on written submissions, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play.

6. The learned authorities below erred in initiating and not adjudicating the penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, despite the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant had a bona fide explanation, duly supported by documentation, and the initial non-filing of return was due to the total income being below the basic exemption limit. In light of the reasonable cause and absence of any mala fide intent, the initiation of penalty proceedings is unjustified and the same deserves to be quashed.

7. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.”

2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on the information flagged as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA software under the head NMS/High Risk CRI/VRU cases that the assessee despite having carried out substantial financial transactions, viz., (i) cash deposits aggregating to Rs.2 lakhs or more with a banking company: Rs.21,81,000/-; and (ii) cash deposits of Rs.10 lakhs or more in a savings bank account: Rs.30,17,200/-, had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2015-16, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. An order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/04/2022 was passed by the