2023 (9) TMI 1149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... following grounds of appeal: "Ground 1 Re-assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28-12-2018 is invalid and bad in law for the following reasons: (i) Notice u/s 143(2) not served: Notice u/s 143(2) was not served on the appellant. (ii) The Ld. AO did not reject the objections raised by the appellant vide its letter dated 06-12-2018. (iii) No Conclusive Evidence in possession: The Ld.AO neither had nor shared any evidences which could conclusively prove that the total sale consideration was Rs. 1,50,00,000 and not Rs. 55,00,000. (iv) No Independent inquiry made by the Ld.AO before issuing notice u/s. 148. (v) Cross Examination not provided Relief Claimed: T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r by profession, assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 16.06.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,39,800/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar received certain information from ITO (Investigation), Pune regarding Dr. Sachin Changedia, based on the said information, the AO i.e. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar recorded reasons for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2017 was issued by the ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar, the said notice under section 148 was served on appellant assessee on 03.04.2017. The assessee vide his letter dated 07.02.2018 requested the AO to treat the Return of Income original filed on 16.06.2011 as the Return filed in response to n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order of the AO and ld. CIT(A). Findings and Analysis : 6. We will take up first the legal ground of the assessee challenging the reopening. It is alleged in the reasons recorded by the AO that there was a "Sathekhat" between assessee and Mr. Phaltane for sale of the land at Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The AO had received this information and the impugned "Sathekhat" from ITO(Investigation), Pune. We have perused the copy of the "Sathekhat" filed by the ld.AR (page 11 & 13 of Paper book). It is observed that nowhere in the "Sathekhat" amount of Rs. 1.50 crore is mentioned. Thus, it is clear that the reopening is based on a "Sathekhat" alleging sale consideration of Rs. 1.50 crore, but said "Sathekhat" does not mention anywhere the amount ....