2022 (4) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missing the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction and on the merits is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening by issue of notice u/s. 148 and the completion of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was an apparent lack of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment in as much as the original assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 15.12.14 and there was no failure on the port of assessee to furnish any material and hence the reopening was bad in law. 4. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment beyond the 4-year statutory time limit is impermissible as per the Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct." 2. Facts are, in brief, that this is second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, the Single Member Bench of ITAT has quashed the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the ground that when there is time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] and the Assessing Officer has to complete the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is precluded from issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. However, in terms of provisions of section 149(1)(b) r.w.s. 151(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has again reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated to the assessee are reproduced as under: "The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 25.03.2013 admitting total income of Rs. 2,17,740/- under the head salary and under the head capital gain admitted NIL income claiming exemption u/s. 54 of Rs. 12,39,280/-. During the Year under consideration the assessee has sold a property along with his brother and his share of consideration was Rs. 39,05,530/-. Enquiries revealed that assessee has purchased a plot in his wife name. Hence exemption u/s. 54 as claimed by the assessee is not allowable as plot has been purchased instead of residential house and that too in the name of his wife. From the above issues, I have reason to believe that income has escape....