Reassessment procedure compliance preserves notices, while valuation additions fail if Sub-Registrar valuation and under 5% variance are shown.

Challenges to notices for failure to mention DIN were dismissed where the record demonstrated presence of a DIN. Reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 were held valid where the reassessment procedure and the interposed opportunity process were complied with according to the amended statutory scheme and judicial interpretation, so limitation under the reenactment did not invalidate reopening. An addition under the gratuitous receipt/benefit provision for difference between guideline/residential value and sale consideration was disallowed where the deed classified the land as agricultural, stamp duty was paid on that basis and the market-to-sale variance was below the recognised 5% threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice/assessment is invalid for non-mentioning of DIN as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019; (ii) Whether reassessment reopened and notice issued under section 148 (on or after 01.04.2021) is barred by limitation or otherwise invalid for non-compliance with amended provisions (sections 147-151 and section 148A) including Explanation 1 and section 149(1)(b); (iii) Whether addition under section 56(2)(vii) on account of difference between guideline/residential type-1 value and market/sale consideration for dry/agricultural land is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the notice/assessment is invalid for non-mentioning of DIN as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019.

Analysis: The record (paper book pages 35-36) was inspected for the notice under section 142(1) and the presence of DIN was considered in light of the Circular's mandate; parties' submissions on the presence/absence of DIN were addressed and the document showing the DIN was identified.

Conclusion: The notice under section 142(1) contains a DIN; ground No. 6 is dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment reopened and notice issued under section 148 (on or after 01.04.2021) is barred by limitation or otherwise invalid for non-compliance with amended provisions (sections 147-151 and section 148A) including Explanation 1 and section 149(1)(b).

Analysis: The amended scheme (Finance Act, 2021) and the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal were applied to notices issued on or after 01.04.2021; the record shows issuance of initial notice dated 19.04.2021, subsequent provision of information/material by AO by letter dated 01.06.2022, the assessee's reply, and an order under clause (d) of section 148A dated 28.07.2022 followed by notice dated 28.07.2022. The tribunal examined whether the procedure under section 148A was effectively complied with and whether limitation under section 149 operated to invalidate the notice.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and completed in accordance with the amended provisions and relevant judicial guidance; the notice is not barred by limitation and grounds attacking reopening (grounds 3-8) are dismissed.

Issue (iii): Whether addition under section 56(2)(vii) on account of difference between guideline/residential type-1 value and market/sale consideration for dry/agricultural land is sustainable.

Analysis: The tribunal reviewed the sale deed, its declaration of land as Punjai (agricultural), payment of stamp duty and registration fee based on Sub-Registrar valuation, and enquiries made by the AO (including SRO and Tahsildar reports). The tribunal considered whether the AO and DRP were justified in treating the land as residential type-1 and in making an addition under section 56(2)(vii), and whether the numerical difference between sale consideration and market value warranted addition in view of the established principle regarding variations below 5%.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer's addition is not sustainable. The sale deed shows classification and stamp duty paid on agricultural value; no evidence of deficit stamp duty was produced. The difference between market value and sale consideration is under 5% and therefore no addition is maintainable; ground No. 9 is allowed.

Final Conclusion: The tribunal confirms the validity of the reassessment procedure under the amended statutory scheme but allows the assessee's challenge to the valuation addition under section 56(2)(vii), resulting in a partly allowed appeal in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 comply with the procedural requirements of section 148A as interpreted by the Supreme Court, such notices are not invalidated by limitation under section 149; further, where the variation between market value and sale consideration is less than 5% and stamp duty/registration were paid based on the Sub-Registrar's valuation, no addition under section 56(2)(vii) is maintainable.

---