TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire consideration in Cash. Since the assessee paid such a huge sum of money in cash in-spite of being a nonfiler, he had a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After recording the reasons and obtaining the necessary approval of Addl. CIT (IT), Hyderabad, he initiated proceedings u/s 147 for the A.Y. 2017-18 by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 24.02.2021. The said notice was served on the assessee through e-proceedings/ITBA on the same day i.e. 24.02.2021. 3. The assessee failed to file the Return of Income in response to the above mentioned notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Vide letter dated 25.10.2021, another opportunity was granted to the assessee to comply with the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the same, the assessee vide his letter dated 02.11.2021 acknowledged the receipt of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 24.02.2021 and requested for a week's time to file the return of Income. Since the assessee again failed to file the Return of Income within the extended time sought by him, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.11.2021 through ITBA. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pa Rani, Sri Ravula Dayanand Yadav, Smt Salla Saritha Yadav, Smt. Mailkol Navitha, Smt Thota Swathi Yadav and the Vendee i.e. the assessee Sri. Farooq Ali. The said Sale Deed was registered as Document No. 6433 of 2016 by the Sub-Registrar, Narapalli on 05/10/2016. As per the sale deed, the assessee purchased an agricultural land totally admeasuring 4 Acres 26 Guntas (i.e. 0 Acres 25 Guntas in Survey No. 117, 2 Acres 19 Guntas in Survey No. 118 and 1 Acre 22 Guntas in Survey No. 120) situated at Jalpally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the above mentioned vendors. The actual sale consideration as per the Sale Deed as well as value adopted by the SRO for stamp duty purpose are same i.e. Rs. 2,55,75,000/-. Further, on page No. 4 of the above-mentioned Sale Deed, it is mentioned that the vendee i.e. the assessee had paid the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,55,75,000/- on 05/10/2016 jointly to the vendors by way of cash and the vendors have admitted and acknowledged the same. 6. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,55,75,000/- to the total income of the assessee by recording as under: 7. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023 is itself time barred and does not survive in the eyes of law. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) in the case of PCIT vs. Virendra Choudhary reported in 139 Taxmann 90, he drew the attention of the Bench to Para No.7 of the order which reads as under: "7. The case of the assessee thus was covered under clause (ii) of further proviso to Section 153B(1)(b). The Commissioner, therefore, correctly examined the factual position in the background of such legal proviso and noted that the documents relating to the assessee were sent to the assessing officer and were received by him on 30.09.2014. As per the second proviso, the time-limit for passing assessment would be nine months from the end of financial year of 2014-15 i.e. 31.12.2015 or twenty-one months from the end of financial year in which last of the authorisation and search were made, whichever is later. In this case, these two relevant dates were 31.12.2015 and 31.12.2014 respectively. The assessing officer had to pass the order of assessment latest by 31.02.2015. He completed the assessment on 31.03.2016, which was clearly time-barred. No question of law arises.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investment was made. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the provisions of section 5 (2) of the Income-Tax Act according to which a person who is a 'non-resident' has to pay tax only on that income which is either received or is deemed to be received by him in India, or accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise to him in India, during the year. Thus, he will be liable to tax only in respect of income received or accrued to him in India. He submitted that during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order has made addition of Rs.2,55,75,000/- alleging that the assessee had paid cash to vendors for purchase of the said property and accordingly made addition of unexplained investment. He submitted that for the year under consideration, the residential status of assessee is Non-Resident Individual and is engaged in construction and fabrication business at Sharjah, UAE. He submitted that the source of income was explained before the Assessing Officer. He submitted that as per section 90 of the Act and DTAA entered by India & UAE, the assessee is liable to pay tax in the residency i.e. UAE and not in India. Therefore, proposing add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase of the immovable property, sources of the acquisition do not arise in the present case. Further, the Assessing Officer has not cross verified from the vendors who had filed affidavits stating that they have not received any money nor any corroborative evidence was available with the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified. 22. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. So far as the validity of 148 proceedings are concerned, she submitted that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.02.2021 which was served electronically on the same day. The assessee vide reply dated 2.11.2021 himself has acknowledge the receipt of the notice. Further, the assessee has filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 after acknowledging its receipt. She drew the attention of the Bench to section 292BB and submitted that since the assessee had not raised any objection on the validity or merit of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, the requirement of passing a speaking order or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 153(2) read as under: "153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable: Provided that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2018, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "eighteen months" had been substituted: [Provided further that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the- (i) 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted; (ii) 1st day of April, 2020, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "eighteen months" had been substituted: Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eed not be proved further. It is a well-known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. The Sale Deed No. 6433/2016 contains all the terms and conditions agreed by and between the parties. 3. The Civil Suit filed by a third party claiming title to said property after the registration of Sale Deed between the assessee and Vendors thereon will not negate the contents of the Sale Deed. The assessee has not furnished information as to whether he filled any counter/ objection in the said Civil Suit to say that he did not pay the sale consideration and hence he cannot be held as defendant in the Civil Suit. 4. The affidavits purportedly given by the vendors as submitted by the assessee are found to be forged. Further such self affidavit does not have any evidentiary value in the eyes of the law. 5. When the assessee disputes the contents of Registered Sale Deed entered & 8. executed by himself, the burden of proof is on him to disprove the contents of the said Deed. But the assessee has not discharged his burden of proof. 6. The assessee did not offer any explanation about the ....