TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Rs. 74,36,000/-, purchase and sale of shares of Rs. 3,90,000/- and Rs. 6,47,298/-. Therefore, as per section 148A of the Act, notice dated 21.01.2023 was issued by the Assessing Officer. It is alleged by the Assessing Officer(AO) that assessee failed to file any reply and assessee has not filed any Return of Income u/sec. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, AO recorded reasons for reopening and issued notice u/sec. 148 of the Act, through ITBA Portal on 23.02.2023 for A.Y.2016-17. In response to notice u/sec. 142(1) dated 03.03.2024, assessee filed copies of two purchase deeds, details of payments and source for the purchase of property, copy of bank statement, copy of passport to prove that he is an NRI and other documents. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RP in person whereas the 4(1) of DRP Rules allows submission through AGENT and Post Office/Courier also works as agent of the assessee. Hence, the discrepancies raised by DRP on the basis of its own presumptions, surmises and conjectures should be quashed. 2. The Honourable DRP has allegedly rejected our objection on the ground that the Form 35A as prescribed is not filed in quadruplicate. The Track report of DTDC courier proves that assessee had sent 4 copies on the basis of weight and height of the courier. Hence, the discrepancies raised by DRP on the basis of its own presumptions, surmises and conjectures should be quashed. 3. The Honourable DRP has allegedly rejected our objection on the ground that the certified Draft Assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....falsified by DRP as direction by DRP and passing the order without obtaining actual directions from DRP. 9. Ld. AO never required assessee to produce any agreement between buyer and seller and assumed absence of such agreement on the basis of own presumptions, surmises and conjectures. 10. Ld. A.O. erred in both facts and law by taking Stamp Duty Value on the date of Registry instead of Date of payment/agreement which had taken place in 2008-09 on the basis of his own presumptions, surmises and conjectures. Ld. AO never required the assessee to provide circle rates or tried himself to find out circle rate of Financial Year 2008-09 to determine the difference in the circle rate and actual purchase rate for the year 2008-2009 and proceede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso submitted that assessee had not filed copy of draft assessment order which is the basic requirement for deciding the objections raised by assessee. Therefore, DRP was right in rejecting assessee's application. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, the assessee had filed objections before Draft Resolution Panel-3[DRP], West Zone, Mumbai by post which was received by DRP on 15.04.2024. However, DRP rejected the Assessee's application as under: "You have requested for direction of the DRP issued in your case. In this regard, please be informed that in your case, Draft assessment order was passed on 15.03.2024. You were supposed to file objection with the DRP within 30 days o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the I.T.Rule. 2) Form No.35A, as prescribed, is not filed in quadruplicate. 3) Certified Draft Assessment Order is not attached (in quadrapulate). 4) The application is received on 15.04.2024 which is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 144C(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4.5 The DRP alleges that assessee had not submitted certified copy of the assessment order, Form No.35A was not filed in quadruplicate. These are the defects in appeal application. For this, DRP should have issued a defect memo. DRP has become hyper-technical. Assessee had filed application by post which is sufficient compliance of the Rule 4(1) of the I.T. Rules. The substantial justice is more important. 4.6 In this case, the AO has invoked provisions of section 56(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: 4.9 The CBDT had issued Circular Number 5 of 2010 dated 3rd June, 2010 explaining the amendments, the relevant part of the CBDT circular is reproduced here as under : "23.4 Applicability- These amendments have been made applicable with effect from 1st October, 2009 and will accordingly apply in relation to transactions undertaken on or after such date." 4.10 Thus, the amendment is applicable to transactions undertaken after 01/10/2010. In this case the AO has admitted that entire payment was ....