TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the subject matter of reassessment proceedings, which culminated in an order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner's contentions were accepted, and no addition was made. The petitioner contends that assessment cannot be opened twice for the same reason. 3. The second ground is that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. According to the petitioner, the limitation for issuance of the impugned notice expired on 31.03.2024. 4. The grounds on which the petitioner's assessment is sought to be reopened revolves around transactions, whereby the petitioner had sold 1,70,000 (One Lac Seventy Thousand) shares of a company named Trustline Real Estate Private Limited (hereafter TREPL) to one Mr Samir Dev Sharma at the rate of Rs. 42/- per share. The Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) suspects that the said shares were sold at an apparent consideration, which is below the fair market value with an intent to avoid tax. 5. The petitioner disputes the same and contends that her income for AY 2017-18 has been reassessed for the same reason that she had sold the shares of TREPL at a value, which was less than the fair market....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate Pvt Ltd to Mr. Samir Dev Sharma during the year. Further, M/s Trustline Securities Ltd. Also transferred its 17,30,000 shares to Mr. Samir Dev Sharma during the year. It is to be noted here that assessee: Sarika Kansai is a shareholder and director in the company: M/s Trustline Securities Ltd. by transferring shares by Trustline Securities Ltd. There is also an indirect transfer of shares by Sarika Kansal to Mr. Samir Dev Sharma. It is mentioned in the information received from investigation wing that assessee has grossly undervalued her shares in these companies and transferred it to Mr. Samir Dev Sharma at a throw away prices. This was done by the assesses to avoid payment of taxes on such transfer of shares. Assesses has made undervaluation of her shares and declared less capital gains on such transaction. Assesses made undervaluation of shares transferred amounting to Rs. 18,91,41,050/- during the AY 2017-18. Assesses has filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year by declaring a total taxable income of Rs. 74,77,750/-. From the above, it is clear that the assessee did not declare its true income during the year. Also, the amount of transactions undertaken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter dated 27-11-2021, 27-01-2022 & 21-3-2022, we are hereby submitting the below required information and documents as required by your good self: 1) The Area of Property Held by M/s Trustline Real Estate Private Limited Situated at A-20, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110065 is as under: Covered Area First Floor: 2248.44 SQ.FT. Covered Area Third Floor: 2248.44 SQ.FT. Total Covered Area: 4496.88 SQ. FT. 2) The Market value of the property above mentioned property as per Govt Approved Valuer valuation report was Rs. 8,58,90,408/-. 3) The fair value of property was taken on the basis of Valuation report from Govt Approved Valuer Dated 29-04-201. The value of the property was Rs. 8,58,90,408/- as per the property valuation report, and on the basis of the same Rs. 8,60,00,000/- was taken as fair value of property in the unquoted share valuation report dated 31-05-2016 as per rule 11UAA of the Income Tax Rules. The property valuation report is attached as Annexure A. 4) Audited balance sheet and profit & loss account of the of M/s M/s. Trustline Real Estate Pvt Ltd.is attached as Annexure B. Further it is being submitted that the form 3CEB is not applicable on the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trinsic value of shares of M/s Trustline Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and these shares derive their value only from the underlying asset i.e the aforesaid property. 5. Therefore, in view of above, it is evident that this entire arrangement of transfer of shares is facade and sham and effectively a transaction for transfer of property through which assessee has sought to evade paying stamp duty on transfer of property as well as concealed the actual amount involved in the transaction, which would have also entailed a substantial tax liability. Therefore, stamp duty value of the land upon which property No. A-20, Friends Colony East, Delhi exists is calculated as under: Area=500 Sq.yrds = 418.064 Sq.Mtrs @ Circle rate Rs.7,74,000/- per Sq Mtrs.= Rs.32,35,81,536/- 6. Based on the above discussion, prima facie it appears that the income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 32,35,81,536/- has escaped assessment in the assessment year under consideration. The stated transactions qualify the requirements specified u/s 149 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act." 15. It is apparent from the above that the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act was issued on the assumption that the petitioner had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Securities Ltd. 7,26,60,000 6,00,000 Trustline Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 2,52,00,000 25,00,000 TOTAL 10,50,00,000" 18. The impugned order proceeds on the assumption that TREPL owned the entire Friends Colony property ad-measuring 500 sq. yds. (418.064 sq. mtrs.) and the circle rate in the given area is Rs. 7,74,000/- per sq. meter. Thus, the value of the immovable property owned by TREPL is Rs. 32,35,81,536/- and the same had been transferred indirectly by sale of shares of TREPL. The impugned order on the aforesaid basis computes the fair market value of the shares of TREPL sold by the petitioner as under: "Property Share of Sarika Kansal is as under:- Cost of property as per Stamp Duty divided by total no. Of shares multiplied by shares of Sarika Kansal i.e. 32,35,81,536/25,00,000 X 1,70,000 = Rs. 2,20,03,544/-. Therefore, it is evident to mention here that Smt. Sarika Kansal has transferred aforesaid property at a low cost of Rs. 71,40,000/- however, actual share of assessee in property was valued at Rs. 2,20,03,544/-. ** ** ** ** 8. In view of observation made above, it is seen that assessee being director of the company has sold property, for which F.M.V. a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny property. 21. Undisputedly, the impugned order has been passed on the basis that TREPL owns the entire Friends Colony property. However, the same was clearly an issue in the earlier round as well and the petitioner had clearly explained the extent of property owned by TREPL. In her response to the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the petitioner had reiterated that TREPL owns only two floors of the Friends Colony property and there is no material on record available with the AO to contradict the same. The impugned order does not discuss why the petitioner's assertion that TREPL owns only two floors of the Friends Colony property had been ignored. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue also does not address the said issue. The counter affidavit merely reiterates what is stated in the impugned order. 22. This court had pointedly asked Mr. Ojha whether there was any material with the AO to indicate that TREPL owned the entire Friends Colony property. He also sought time for instructions and responded by pointing out that one of the schedules of the balance sheet of TREPL reflects that TREPL owns the entire Friends Colony property. The ....