TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC/ CIT(A)] has erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the additions made by the Assessing officer. 2. Reassessment proceedings bad in law a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and further Ld.NFAC / CIT(A) erred in reopening the assessment; the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed. b) Without prejudice to above, the notice u/s 148A(b), the order u/s 148A(d), and the reopening notice u/s 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer instead of Faceless Assessing officer, and hence the reassessment proceedings are beyond jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a firm, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 declaring income at Rs. 3,710/-. Assessing Officer received information through insight portal of department that assessee has sold a property for a sale consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/-. Market value of the property was as determined by Stamp Valuation Authorities was at Rs. 44,61,622/-. As there is difference between the sale consideration and the market value [probably assessed by the in stamp value authority] to be of Rs. 25,11,622/-, therefore the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") could attracts. Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer in Para No. 5.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer further recorded that on the request of assessee matter was referred to District valuation officer (DVO). The DVO estimated the valued the property at Rs. 25,09,022/-. On receipt of valuation report from DVO, the assessee was asked to submit its objection (clarification) about the valuation report. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee failed to submit his objection. The Assessing Officer on the basis of report of DVO made addition of Rs. 5,59,022/- [25,09,022 - 19,50,000] under section 56(2) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A), assessee challenged the validity of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of asset at Rs. 25,09,022/- and the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of such report. On the objection of assessee that fair market value was determined as on 01.06.2019 instead of actual date of purchase, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there is a difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration then difference between the value determined by stamp duty authority and sale consideration is to be added in the income in the year consideration. The DVO has considered all the relevant material and information related to prevailing market conditions of the area. Thus the action of the Assessing Officer is in accordance with law. On the objection of assessee that no fair and proper opportunity was given, Ld.CIT(A) held that de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actually incorrect. The assessee has not sold such property; rather the assessee had purchased the property. Thus, the basis of reopening is itself wrong. Thus, Assessing Officer passed order under section 148A(d) without verification of facts. Once the basis of issuance of notice itself is wrong the action thereon is void ab-initio. The assessee in response to order under section 148A(d) of the Act, in its reply dated 08.02.2023 clearly stated that they are not involved in any such transactions and that they have not sold any property and that a wrong notice has been issued to them. The assessee prayed for dropping the reopening. Right from the beginning the assessee has raised objection against the wrong information. 6. On merits, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et value were considered by DVO. The DVO has already determined the property at Rs. 25,09,022/- by allowing sufficient relief to the assessee. The assessee is not entitled for any further relief. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and I have gone though the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I shall consider the submissions of the parties on validity of reopening. I find that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information in the insight portal. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain the facts vide notice dated 18.03.20122, but the assessee failed to make any response. Again order under section 148A(a) was passed and notice under section 148 was iss....