TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised the following grounds in the instant appeal : 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed consequent to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is incorrect and unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 26,37,000 by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(il) of the Income Tax Act which was introduced by Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1.4.2014. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the Appellant, admittedly, paid the consideration spanning over 5 years and the first of the payments was made in the Fy 2010-11 and AOS was entered into on 21.03.2012, during which period, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed". 2.1. The assessee has also pleaded the following additional ground of appeal in the instant appeal : "The assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is barred by limitation and non est in law, as the same is passed beyond the period of ONE YEAR from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued". 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and non-resident for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 26,37,000/- u/sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act towards difference in consideration paid for purchase of property and SRO value of the property. The Assessing Officer further noted that, assessee has paid consideration of Rs. 49,62,000/- for purchase of property, but, could not explain the source. Therefore, made addition of Rs. 49,62,000/- u/sec.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. Since the assessee is a non-resident and an eligible assessee in terms of sec.144C(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has passed Draft Assessment Order dated 02.03.2023 u/sec.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 77,67,000/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment, the assessment shall be completed within one year from the end of the financial year, in which, such notice u/sec.148 was issued. In the present case, notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021 and in the ordinary course, the assessment should be completed on 31.03.2022. Although, the assessee is considered as an eligible assessee in terms of sec.144C(15) of the Act, but, still the Assessing Officer shall pass a Draft Assessment Order before one month from the due date for passing the assessment order in terms of sec.153(2) of the Act and further, in case, the assessee opted to file objections before the DRP, then, the Assessing Officer will get 12 months extended period for completion of assessment. In the present case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered, but, not the time limit for passing Draft Assessment Order as claimed by the Counsel for the Assessee. Since the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is well within the time, there is no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee and thus, the same needs to be rejected. 8. 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, notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer where the Assessing Officer has referred to notice u/sec.148 dated 30.03.2021. Further, as claimed by the Assessing Officer only one notice u/sec.142(1) of the ....