Order u/s 148A(d) quashed as correct amount of cash deposit was less than Rs. 50 lakhs

Reopening order u/s 148A(d) quashed as correct amount of cash deposit in bank was less than Rs. 50 lakhs

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has quashed the re-assessment order u/s 148A(d) issued after three years as correct amount of cash deposit in bank was less than Rs. 50 lakhs

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3940 (2024) (04) HC

Important Case Laws relied upon:
Balaji Institute of Health and Medical Education Society vs. Income Tax Officer

In the instant case the assessee had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act along with the consequential notice u/s 148 of re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2016-17

According to the assessee the impugned notices/order were devoid of jurisdiction under Sections 148A, 149(1)(b) and 151A of the Act.

A show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee who was an individual for the assessment year 2016-17 on account of the fact that there were deposits of more than Rs. 50 lakhs in cash with the Bank.

It was the case of the petitioner that as per the certificate issued from the said bank, the total cash deposits were less than Rs. 50 lakhs on different dates from in the savings account.  The said fact had also been brought to the notice of the authorities vide the submission filed by the assessee wherein it was stated that once the cash deposits were below Rs. 50 lakhs the re-assessment had become time barred.

Before the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee submitted that the matter is already covered by the judgment of the Court wherein it has been held that if the amount is below Rs. 50,00,000/-, no re-assessment proceedings can be initiated under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act on account of being time barred.

The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders and all consequential proceedings.

Download Full Judgment ABCAUS 3940 (2024) (04) HC Click Here >>

• Taxes on sales comprising in turnover to be excluded for estimating net profit
• Capital contribution deposited in assessee’s bank not partnership firm – Addition 69A upheld
• Bail granted to a CA accused in a GST evasion of more than 40 crores
• Every provision invoked casts a different onus, quoting wrong section prejudice the assessee
• Liability under MV Act can’t be decided on the grounds of sympathy alone – Supreme Court