Soham Techno Cast Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
The appeal before the ITAT Rajkot arose from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27.09.2025, which had affirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, the validity of approvals and notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A, the addition of Rs. 34,30,995 under Section 69A, the application of Section 115BBE, initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1), and levy of interest under various provisions.
According to the material on record, the assessee had filed a return declaring income of Rs. 26,220. The Assessing Officer noted cash deposits of Rs. 34,30,995, including Rs. 25,30,995 deposited during the demonetisation period, which were considered disproportionate to the returned income. As the assessee did not comply with notices issued under Section 148A(b), the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the earlier notice under Section 148 was treated as a notice under Section 148A(b), material was supplied to the assessee, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed, and a fresh notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessee requested that the earlier return be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148. Thereafter, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued.
