Notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 beyond 6-year old regime limit cannot be issued post-Finance Act 2021; first proviso bars it independently, unaffected by fifth/sixth provisos excluding s.148A time. (32 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 11/09/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 24/02/2023 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 Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law while passing the order.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered that the learned AO as per his/her convenience very calculatedly assumed that the assessee" "chose to remain silent on the proposed action" and furnished no reply, despite "sufficient opportunity provided". It is to bring to your kind notice that the assessee has been an ardent taxpayer and ever since he got aware of the seriousness of the situation, all timely compliances have been made. The assessee has only received notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 by post. All other notices were served to the email id maheshjaju@gmall.com.

The assessee in all good faith had handed over the 148 notices to his consultant Mahesh Jaju and was under the impression that the matter is settled. As no other notices were served to him physically, he remained unaware about the repeated notices issued on the consultant's email alone. In the case of Heggenahalli Nanjundappa Manjunatha, Bengaluru V. The ITO, Ward 6(2)(5) Bengaluru, it was observed that "the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes stating that the CIT(A) had issued two notices in October and November 2024 which were not replied to the CIT(A) concluded the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed it. The assessee contended that those notices were sent to a consultant's e mail and were not received, preventing him from responding in time. Balancing these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) because of the timeline and manner of service of notices. On that basis the ITAT did not decide on the merits itself but remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to file requisite details when the hearing window is opened".

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering that SCN u/s 144 was issued on 30.01.2023 with response due date being 03.02.2023 (4 days) and again final SCN was issued on 10.02.2023 with response due date being 15.02.2023 (5 days, working days being 3 days only). The assessee got aware only on 15.02.2023 about the notices and SCN issued and thereby request for grant of some more time to gather required information. However, without considering the same, the AO passed an order on 24.02.2023. In the case of P.C.C.I.T. vs Smt. Komarla Yogendra Keertan, The Karnataka HC struck down a notice under s. 148A(b) because it gave only 5 days to reply (24-03-2022 to 29-03-2022), less than the mandatory 7 days. The court held that giving less than 7 days makes the notice "invalid."

4. The Ld. CIT(A) fails to explain that despite the books of accounts being produced which already includes such turnover and also considering the assessee 's generational knowledige and expertise of raw turmeric trading, the basis of charging the same amount to tax at higher rate claiming the same to be unexplained investment u/s 69 is unwarranted, lacks reasonable basis, and is contrary to established principles of fairness and equity, The id. AO fails to distinguish the turnover from the assessee's investments. The only inves