TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2016-2017. ITA.No.447/Hyd./2024 - A.Y. 2016-2017 : 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non-resident individual for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has resided in Saudi Arabia, as an employee working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management Department with M/s. Qatar Energy and filed letter dated 25.08.2022 from his employer and earning income from outside India. The assessee has not earned income in India and has not filed return of income for the impugned assessment year 2016-2017. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.10.2019 in the case of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt Ltd, City Centre Mall, 6th Floor, Road No.1, Hyderabad, which is engaged in the business of Construction (Builders). The said company has entered into a Development Agreement with landlords and developed a commercial mall named "Sarath City Capital Mall" at Kondapur, Hyderabad. During the course of search and seizure proceedings, incriminating information(s)/ document(s)/loose sheets/documents pertaining to the assessee viz., Shri Raziulla Syed were found and as per which certain data in the form of excel shee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the I.T. Act, 1961 or any other supporting evidences in respect of claim made by the assessee could be furnished. In absence of above discussed supporting documentary evidences and satisfactorily reply, the claim exemption made under section 10(34) remains unexplained and unverified and, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exempt income claimed by the assessee and added to the income assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 43,03,950/- vide Draft Assessment Order dated 30.05.2023 passed u/sec.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer in making the impugned additions, the assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru. 4. The Learned DRP noted that, as per the seized material, the assessee. Mr. Iqbal Ali Jaweed had purchased a commercial property for a consideration of Rs. 50,37,400/- and payment was done through bank channels (Rs.33,70,000/- paid in FY 2015-16 and Rs. 16,67,000/- paid in FY 2016-17). However, subsequently the builder, Skill Promoters Private Limited returned back an amount of Rs. 48,94,515/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed by the assessee u/sec.10(34) of the Act and also denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/sec.80C of the Act at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 27,73,255/- as against the returned income of assessee at Rs. 2,47,030/- vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed u/sec.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The assessee had filed objections before the DRP and the learned DRP on identical circumstances, upheld the Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. In pursuance to the Directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Orders both dated 13.03.2024 by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 43,03,950/- and Rs. 27,73,255/- u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, respectively. 8. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is now in appeals before the Tribunal. 9. CA P Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee invited the attention of the Bench with respect to initiation of proceedings u/sec.147 is invalid as the approval as per provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961 as per the new regime of reopening, but, the fact remains that, there is thin line between the date of notice and the assessment order in question and, therefore, the arguments of the assessee that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2, Mumbai, is not in accordance with provisions of sec.151(ii) of the Act is incorrect and should be rejected. 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, reopening in the present case has been taken-up as per the amended provisions of sec.147, 148, 149, 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the amended provisions of sec.148 of the Act which is evident from subsequent notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 where the Assessing Officer in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Ashish Agarwal (supra), has considered the earlier notice issued u/sec.148, as fresh notice in light of provisions of sec.148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, it is neces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner or Principal Director General are the Specified Authority(ies). Since in the present case, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 after approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad, the said approval is not in accordance with provision of sec.151(ii) of the Act and consequently, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and assessment order passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act dated 02.03.2024 is illegal, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 7.1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assessing Officer issued original notice u/sec.148 of the Act for the assessment year in question on 23.04.2021 and as per new scheme of re-assessment procedure, the same has been treated as notice issued u/sec.148A of the Act in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) and finally re-assessment notice u/sec.148 was issued to the assessee on 30.07.2022 after approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad dated 27.07.2022. As per the provisions of sec.151(ii) of the Act, if the reopening of the assessment is after three y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr. CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed." 7.3. The assessee also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Manish Jagdish Joshi vs. CIT ITA.No.1617/Mum./2024 and the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held as under : "We find that while considering the similar issue a....