TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reopening under Section 148 in this case does not meet the requirements of law, including the failure to provide proper reasons for reopening or to provide a clear basis for such action. Further, upon filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals), the CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal. The appellant should be given an opportunity to examine the reasons recorded by the A.O. for reopening the assessment to ensure they are valid and justified. Therefore, it is prayed to nullify the assessment and delete the addition of Rs. 3,25,07,063/-. Ground 2 In this case, the appellant has claimed that he was not the owner of the property being referred to and have already sold the property long back in 2005 with proper regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment u/s 147 is invalid with wrong additions. Ground 6 The appellant requests the right to amend or add to the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, should any new issues arise or if further details need to be presented." 3. The assessee's case was reopened as the assessee has sold immoveable property on more than Rs. 3,28,42,904/- and has not filed return of income. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 27-03-2018 was issued after recording the reasons for the same and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold immoveable property of more than Rs. 30,00,000/- in assessment year 2011-12 and the assessee has filed the return of income. But after the informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esponse to the said notice, the assessee submitted the response on 21-12-2018. The assessee submitted that the assessee is a confirming party and the power of authority of seller Shri Dipak Sadarangani and other have not received any payment out or Rs. 2,23,00,000/- as can be seen from the sale deed dated 08- 02-2011 page no. 4 of (table of payment). Rs. 73,00,000/- was paid directly to liquidator by purchaser and Rs. 25,00,000 have been paid to U.C. Lakhwani by the purchaser directly on 07-02-2011. Rs. 1,25,00,000/- has been paid directly to Titco Ltd. Taurus Mutual Fund on 07- 02-2011. Thus, the entire payments were made directly to various parities by the purchaser as per the official liquidator of Motorol India Ltd. getting the title cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing the POA of Shri Dipak Sadarangani and Smt. Sonal Dipak Sadarangani. The sale agreement was done just to cover up by the assessee to avoid any litigation with his creditors at various times filed suit in court for realization of their dues. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the formation of the sale deed on 2005 to Sonal Sadarangani who is assessee's own sister and Dipak Sardarangani his brother-in-law is nothing but a colourable device and it is for the benefit of the assessee to reduce capital gain liability and also to evade the creditors. The Assessing Officer therefore calculated the long term capital gain of the assessee at Rs. 3,25,07,063/- on the sale of immovable property and added the same to the income of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court wherein the official liquidator was appointed and directed to distribute the proceeds of the said land. The assessee before the Hon'ble High Court has not pointed out that the assessee is no longer owner of the said property. Thus, the contention of the assessee that the assessee sold the property to Dipak Sadarangani and others, his sister in the year 2005 does not sustain. The assessee is the owner of the said property in the eyes of law as the assessee himself informed the same and the same has been notified by the Hon'ble High Court in the liquidation proceedings. Thus, the proceeds of Rs. 97,00,000/- was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to be paid to the liquidator. The liquidator on behalf of the....