Court invalidates assessment order due to late notice under Section 148, discrepancies in property values not conclusive.

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition as the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation, leading to the invalidation of the assessment order. The discrepancy in property values disclosed in returns and the sale deed was not deemed conclusive evidence. Consequently, the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 was quashed, and the related Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 for reopening assessment.
2. Barred by limitation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Discrepancy in property value disclosed in returns and sale deed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148 for reopening assessment
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The petitioner requested to treat the returns already filed as valid in response to the notice under Section 140, which was rejected by the respondent. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed through the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2016.

Issue 2: Barred by limitation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act
The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 issued on 30.03.2016 was beyond the prescribed period of four years, thus barred by limitation as per the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The High Court observed that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of six years, making it bad in law and unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2016 was deemed invalid and quashed.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in property value disclosed in returns and sale deed
The department argued that the petitioner disclosed a lesser purchase value in the balance sheet compared to the sale value mentioned in the sale deed. However, the Court noted that the petitioner's objections regarding the discrepancy were not considered during the assessment process. The Court clarified that the guideline value in the sale deed is not conclusive evidence of the actual sale value, and the department's decision based on this discrepancy was not accepted.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation, rendering the impugned assessment order invalid. The discrepancy in property value disclosed in the returns and sale deed was not considered conclusive evidence. The Court quashed the assessment order dated 30.12.2016, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.

---