AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formation received from DDIT (I&CI), New Delhi that vide Sale Deed dated 14.08.2012, assessee sold a property situated at Plot No.D-1, Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi to Shri Ranjit Kumar and Smt. Ritu Kumar for a total sale consideration of INR 7,00,00,000/-. The payment of INR 7,00,00,000/- was received by the assessee through cheques issued on different dates and deposited in her bank account maintained with HDFC Bank. According to the AO, the said property was purchased by the assessee in the year under appeal and sources of purchases consideration remained unexplained therefore, after recording the reasons, case of the assessee was reopened. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain why not provisions of section 50C be invoked as there was difference between the declared consideration and the stamp value determined by the respective authorities on the sale of other two properties and accordingly, the amount of capital gain on sale of property declared by the assessee in her ITR for Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 be changed. After considering the replies, additions/ disallowances of INR 1,03,04,361/- were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,11,341/- + 35,18,700/-) by invoking provisions of Section 50C being difference between the actual sale consideration and rate according to the Registrar, disregarding all the submissions made before Id. AO regarding disregarding all the submissions made before Id. AO regarding value declared by the assessee was actual and correct hence the impugned order passed is liable to be quashed. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent has erred in making the addition of Rs. 47,74,320/- by disallowing the interest actually paid and claimed deduction u/s 24b. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent erred in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 5. Though, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte however, since the Ground No.4 of the assessee is purely legal and requires no verification of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in her bank account no 00321000103067 with HDFC Bank. During the course of verification, the assessee Smt. Sonea Dhir was asked to explain quantum of capital gain on sale of property declared by her in her ITR for the FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY: As per sale deeds and details it has been found that the assessee had purchased the said property vide sale deed dated 04/06/2012 from M/s United Air Products Pvt. Ltd having its registered office at F-1, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi-110017 for a sum of Rs 6,54,30,000/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 26,17,200/- was paid by her. Thus the total cost of the property to the assessee came at Rs. 6,80,47,200/- The payments of Rs 6,54,30,000/- to the seller were made by her from 17.01 2011 to 01 04 2011 as per schedule of payments mentioned in the sale deed. However, as per sanction letter dated 07.06.2012, the assessee was sanctioned/approved Non-Residential premises- Equity loan of Rs 2,75,00,000/- only on 07.04.2012 whereas the payments for purchasing the property was made on 17.01 2011, 18.02.2011 08.03.2011 26.03.2011 and 01.04.2011 as per sale deed dated 04.06.2011. the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....99,031/- has been used for full and final repayment of loan to HDFC from whom the assessee had raised loan against the said property. This entry has also been highlighted in the bank statement. However. The assessee could not produce documentary evidence le names and addresses of the parties, their PANs, their creditworthiness, ITRs and bank statements of such parties from which Rs. 6,54,30,000/- was received by her As regards source of payment of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- from housing loan from HDFC Bank, the same could not be established by the assessee since there is no entry in her bank account which shows that the same pertains to housing loan receipts. As per bank statement of account no. 00321000103067 in the name of Smt. Sonea Dhir with HDFC Bank for the period 18/01/2012, the assessee made payments to M/s. United Air Products Pvt. Ltd. in the following manner: 19/01/2011 Rs. 50,00,000/- (Cheque paid) 21/02/2012 Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Cheque paid) 11/03/2011 Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Cheque paid) 26/03/2011 Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Cheque paid) 05/04/2011 Rs. 1,04,30,000/- (Cheque paid) Rs. 6,54,30,000/- 3. I have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reopening of the case was valid." Also, in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- Assessee did not include certain direct manufacturing costs and fiscal duties in the valuation of closing stock. This came to light in the subsequent years assessment proceedings. We have only to see whether there was prima facia some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice u/s 148". Furthermore, in the case of Jyoti Goyal vs ITO (ITA NO. 1259/Del/2010), the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that "As regards the other contentions of the assessee that the reopening was done in a mechanical manner without application of mind, we find there is nothing on record to support such a contention. There is a live link between the information which was available with the Assessing Officer and his formation of belief that income has escaped assessment Sufficiently of such information cannot be gone into while deciding the issue of validity of reopening. The Assessing Officer can also no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to consider and decide all the issues which have come to his knowledge. He thus, requested for the confirmation of the initiation of the proceedings and consequent order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making various additions /disallowance. 10. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the reasons recorded it is seen that the case of the assessee was reopened on the issue of the verification of payment made towards purchases of property for INR 5.50 crores. The AO after reopening the case, vide notice issued u/s 142(1) on 03.12.2018 asked the assessee to file the details of source payment made for purchases of property at Saket District Centre, Saket, Delhi and after considering the submission of the query was made which is apparent from the observations made in para 3 at page 3 of the assessment order which reads as under : 3. During the relevant year, the assessee had made an investment in the property situated at plot no. D-1, Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi purchased from M/s United Air Products Pvt. Ltd. through an agreement to sale dated 26.03.2012 for a sum of Rs. 6,54,30,000/-on w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under section 148." 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. reported in [2011] 63 DTR 212 (Delhi) has held as under: "Reassessment - Scope - Additional reason - Notice issued by AO on the ground that the assessee had accepted accommodation entries in the garb of share capital-During the reassessment proceedings additions made in respect of the credits received from some other parties additions for accommodation entries were made were not found valid and additions were deleted by the Tribunal-Additions in respect of other items which were not part of "reasons to believe" were also not sustainable." 14. Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT reported in [2025] 166 taxmann.com 61 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) has held that "it is not open to AO to independently assess some income other than the income referred in section 148 for which reason was recorded". The relevant head note of the judgement reads as under:- "Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts Assessment years 1994-95 and 1995- 96 Whether an Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its content and cannot be construed to override it or to render substance and core nugatory Held, yes Whether after insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, with effect from 1-4-1989, section 147 has an effect that Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess income ('such income') which escaped assessment and which was basis of formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during course of proceedings Held, yes Whether, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed....