2025 (8) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(in short 'Act') dated 06.03.2023. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee being a non-filer has not filed returns of income for any of the assessment year. It was noticed that assessee has purchased immovable property for a total value of Rs. 28,20,000/- wherein assessee's 1/3rd share amounts to Rs. 9,40,000/-. Assessee has also paid the proportionate registration charges of Rs. 47,733/-. Assessee is a Second-grade School Teacher at MPP School, Achampeta. The case was reopened based on the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, assessee filed his return of income on 26.11.2021 admitting total income at Rs. 3,98,650/-. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short "Ld. AO"] c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts and circumstances of case, learned PCIT ought to have considered the fact that the assessment order subjected to Revision was by itself without jurisdiction and non-est, and the same wouldn't have been revised u/s.263. 2. Learned PCIT erred in not considering the appellant's objection to the assumption of jurisdiction that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dt.3.10.2024, in the case of "Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal Nos. 8629, 8631 of 2024 & Others)", the reassessment based on the Notice dt.30.6.2022 u/S.148 issued as per the Hon'ble CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2022 (on which the learned PCIT relied), for AY:2016- 17, where the alleged escapement of income was much below Rs. 50 lakhs was bad in law ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 26.11.2021 whereas notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2022 and hence assessee is covered under the Explanation 4C to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR also challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (167 taxmann.com 70 SC). He also submitted that Ld.AO has not initiated any penalty proceedings due to the fact that the assessee has discharged the tax liability. 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short "Ld.DR"] relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The sole issue in the instant case is with respe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... power under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus:- "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K.D.'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: "It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings independent of and separate from the assessment proceedings. Though the expression "assessment" is used in the Act with differ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e view taken by the Tribunal that the penalty proceedings do not form part of the assessment proceedings and that the failure of the ITO to record in the assessment order his satisfaction or the lack of it in regard to the leviability of penalty cannot be said to be a factor vitiating the assessment order in any respect. An assessment cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because of the failure of the ITO to record his opinion about the leviability of penalty in the case." 10. Special leave petition against the said decision was dismissed by the Apex Court ((1984) 147 ITR (St) 1. The same view was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165 : (1993) 201 IT....