TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the conduct of proceeding under section 148A of the Act and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as against the Ld. AO in faceless manner as required by e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022. The notices issued and the consequent order is tainted with procedural lapses, hence void and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 2. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred upholding the conduct of the proceedings under section 148A of the Act, issuing notice under section 148 of the Act by the JAO and passing order by the Ld. AO under section 147 of the Act. The information obtained and relied upon is misleading and incorrect and therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding stands vitiated and the reassessment order passed in case of the appellant is bad in law. 3. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Ld. AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve to add, amend, modify alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." Delay condonation : 1.1 There is a delay of 16 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission and found that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the submission of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted Affidavit of the assessee. 2.1 Ld.AR pleaded that the Notice u/s. 148 dated 13/04/2022 and the order is bad in Law.Ld.AR relied on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal and Hon'ble High Court. 2.2 Ld.AR's written submission on merits of the addition is as under : "Even as per the income-tax Department's information, I did not have any taxable income besides the alleged sale of impugned immovable property-only Rs. 11k interest income [Page 11 of Paperbook, Para 1, Page 1 of Reassessment Order] In fact, the impugned immovable property is sold by my father Mr. Dilipkumar Hiralal Agarwal Saraf [PAN: AELPA1854K], who has offered the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR submitted that assessee's name appears in the registered sale deed, therefore, Assessing Officer has rightly taxed assessee. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Assessee is an individual and has not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Brief Facts of the case are as under : 4.1 It is a fact that Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 based on the information regarding sale of immovable property. It is noted from the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer was having copy of the impugned 'Deed of Sale' dated 25 July 2014, which the Assessing Officer obtained after the Order u/s 148A(d) was passed and Notice u/s. 148 dated 13/04/2022 was issued. The sale consideration mentioned in the said 'Deed of Sale' is Rs. 1,20,00,000/- only. Following persons are referred as vendors in the impugned Deed of Sale : * Dilipkumar Saraf * Mrs. Chitra Dilipkumar Saraf-wife of Dilipkumar Saraf * Mrs. Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni- daughter of Dilipkumar Saraf. * Ms.DeepaliDilipkumar Sar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the submission of the assessee which we are reproducing here as under : "1 On March 31, 2022, the Income-tax Officer, Ward 13(2), Pune (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or JAO) issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the AY 2015-16 (Notice No-ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/104220928 4(1)), requesting for certain details from the appellant, in connection to the information obtained by the JAO from the Insight Portal. The information mentioned that the appellant has sold an immovable property during the financial year (FY) 2015-16 amounting to Rs. 3,60,00,000/- No details of such transaction such as date of document, document number etc, were provided to the assessee. 2. The fact was that, during the FY 2014-15, the assessee's father Mr. Dilipkumar Agarwal having PAN. AELPA1854K has sold immovable property for Rs. 1,20,00,000/- vide document no. 4859/2014 registered at the Sub Registrar, Haveli 17 on 25/07/2014. The assessee's name was appearing in the document along with her mother, brother and sister as only family members for the purpose of giving consent for the said sale of the property. The said Mr. Dilipkumar Agarwal rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nformation regarding Sale of Immovable Property, AO passed an order u/s. 148A(d) on 13.04.2022. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 13.04.2022. 5.3 Thus, admittedly the Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 13/04/2022 for AY 2015-16. Discussion : 6. We have perused order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, dated 13.04.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced here as under : Quote "01. Brief details of the Assessee. The assessee VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI ATJPK4584A) is an Individual. No return of income was filled by the assessee for AY 2015-16 The case of the assesses was picked up in Non-Filing of Return (NMS) under priority Pt from Insight portal in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT (Board due to the large transactions done by the assessee during A.Y 2015-16 02. Brief details of the information collected/received by the AO: In this case, the information is received through INSIGHT Portal under Non-Filing of Return(NMS) under priority P1 in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by The CBDT (Board). The information is as per table given below : Code Info Amount(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TO treated the value of transaction as Rs. 3.60 crores. It is also noted that the approving authority has also not bothered to understand the transaction and approved it mechanically. This shows that there is no application of mind by the Approving Authority also. Had the Assessing Officer obtained the copy of the deed of the sale dated 25.07.2014 from the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Haveli, Pune - the ITO would have understood the entire nature of transaction. However, the ITO failed to obtain the same during the proceedings u/s. 148A of the Act. The Competent Authority who approved it had also not bothered to verify the same. 7.2 This also demonstrates that the 'so called Insight Information' relied by the ITO is not reliable, it is factually incorrect. That may be the reason that Parliament in its wisdom has kept a safe guard in the form of Section 148(a) where in the ITO is required to conduct inquiry. 7.3 Under Section 148A(a) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to conduct an enquiry to arrive at the decision that there is income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, but in this case, Assessing Officer has not conducted an enquiry. 7.4 The W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs. 50.00 lakh. This aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the assessee submits, was considered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sitting at Jabalpur in Nitin Nema v. Office of Principal Chief CIT [2023] 155taxmann.com 276/458 ITR 690 (Madhya Pradesh) and relief has been accorded to the Assessee of the kind after referring to the order impugned in this appeal. He also tells us that challenge to the Jabalpur Bench's order has attained finality at the hands of the Apex Court in SLP No(C). 38708 of 2024 on 17.09.2024 and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge has secured imprimatur of the Apex Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are broadly in agreement with the views of the learned Single Judge, inter alia, to the effect that while assessing the quantum of escaped income in matters like this, the amount mentioned in the registered conveyance cannot be straightaway taken without deducting the cost of acquisition therefrom. This apart, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue. There is nothing in sections 148, 148A or section 149 which may prevent assessee from taking advantage of said provisions merely because of his failure to file return......... ..................... 9. From the aforesaid discussion what comes out loud and clear is that the Revenue has failed to understand the fundamental difference between sale consideration on one hand and income chargeable to tax on the other. The Revenue despite being assisted by thousands of experts in the field of finance and taxation, has committed such elementary mistake leading to harassment to the assessee who has been compelled to file the present avoidable piece of litigation. Moreso, this Court has been compelled to decide this frivolous matter wasting its precious time and energy which could have been utilized in more pressing matters ." Unquote. 9.3 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed in the case of Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Vs. ITO 466 ITR 238 (Bom) vide order dated JULY 4, 2024 as under : Quote, " 9. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd following the due procedure prescribed in Section 148A of the Income Tax, 1961 order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed on 13.04.2022 and the case has been selected for scrutiny u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to verify the capital gain on account of the sale of immovable property. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued on 13.04.2022. The assessee has not filed Return of Income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the I. T Act, 1961." (Emphasis Supplied) 11.1 Thus, as per the Assessing Officer the case has been selected for Scrutiny u/s 147 of the Income tax Act to verify the Capital gain on account of sale of immovable property. It means the Notice u/s 148 was issued just for verification. There have been changes in the 'reopening ' procedure in 2021. After the amendment Section 148A was introduced w.e.f01/04/2021. The section 148A is as under : "148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,- (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;" ....