TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 21,23,500 and out of which Rs. 22,00,000 invested by assessee's husband (i.e., Kunj Bihari Mishra) from his bank account which is accepted in scrutiny assessment made u/s.147 of assessee's husband for AY13-14; reopening u/s.148 is merely for verification, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is invalid & is liable to be quashed." Gr.No.2 "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted by ld. PCIT u/s.151(1) is in mechanical, routine & casual manner without application of mind on his part on the dotted lines of reasons recorded by AO, without verifying the records of the assessee that she was co-owner of the impugned property and more so Rs. 22 lakhs has been made invested by her husband which is accepted by the revenue in scrutiny assessment made u/s.147 for assessee's husband 'case for AY13-14 later on and more so, without recording any concurrence/satisfaction on his own by Id PCIT in the impugned approval granted u/s.151(1); sanction granted u/s.151(1) is invalid & thus, assessment made u/s.147 would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Pioneer Town Planners P Ltd (2024) (Del HC)." Gr.No.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is only carried out by dropping the notices/communications/orders in the email address provided by the assessee, but I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the same. If that would have so then there was no need to provide for an option to the appellants to receive the notices/communications through email or by any other mode. As the memorandum of appeal in "Form 35" specifically provides an option as to whether or not notices/communications (which includes notices intimating fixation of appeal) are to be sent on email address, therefore, I am unable to comprehend as to on what basis it is claimed by the Ld. DR that the assessee who had opted out of service of all notices/communications through email was validly served with the notices intimating the fixation of the appeal by dropping the same in her email account. As regards the email account provided by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal, i.e. personal information/Column 17, the same is only for the purpose of providing the details as sought for in the said column. Be that as it may, now when the assessee had in the memorandum of appeal in "Form 35" specifically opted out of service of all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same was retained by her. 8. The A.O based on the contents of the purchase deed observed that the assessee, viz. Smt. Radha Mishra and Smt. Jyoti Mishra had jointly purchased the subject property during the year under consideration for a total consideration of Rs. 42,47,000/-. The A.O observed that one-half share of the assessee in the aforesaid investment worked out at Rs. 21,23,500/- (i.e. 1½ of Rs. 42,27,000/-). Referring to the sale deed, the A.O observed that the sale consideration of Rs. 42,47,000/- was paid by the aforementioned purchaser to the seller viz. Smt. Nisha Sharma, as under: SBI Cheque No.075552, dated 09.02.2013 Rs. 10,00,000.00 SBI Cheque No.075576, dated 28.03.2013 Rs. 12,00,000.00 By cash Rs. 20,47,000.00 Total Rs. 42,47,000.00 9. Apropos the payment aggregating to Rs. 22 lacs that were made to the seller viz. Smt. Nisha Sharma vide cheques, the A.O observed that the said respective cheques were issued from the saving bank account No. 30089020384 with State Bank of India, Branch: Bilaspur of Dr. Kunj Bihari Mishra, husband of the assessee. It was further observed by him that two withdrawals of Rs. 6 lacs each (totaling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 10,00,000.00 SBI Cheque No.075576, dated 28.03.2013 Rs. 12,00,000.00 By cash Rs. 20,47,000.00 Total Rs. 42,47,000.00 The above consideration was paid by the purchasers in 50-50 ratio. The appellant had challenged the re-opening on the ground that the AO had recorded incorrect fact for reopening of the assessment. According to the appellant the AO had recorded aggregate amount of income which had escaped the assessment works out to Rs. 42,47,000/- However the appellant had only invested 50% of the above sum. 6.2 I have gone through the assessment order and the appellant's consideration. It is to be noted here that the appellant had not filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. However, she is one of the purchasers who had invested in the above said immovable property. A letter was also generated through the ITD application which was issued to the appellant requiring him to give the requisite details of source of the transaction of investment. The appellant had not filed written submissions in response to the above letter. In this circumstance, the AO has a valid reason to believe that the investment on the above property is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14. Ostensibly, the subject property viz. a residential plot admeasuring 3808 Sq. Ft. (out of Khasra Nos.4/3 & 4/4) situated at Ward No.42, Dr. Shyamprasad Nagar, Bilaspur had jointly been purchased by Smt. Radha Mishra (i.e. the assessee) and Smt. Jyoti Mishra for a total consideration of Rs. 45,47,701/- [Rs. 42,47,000/- (purchase consideration) (+) Rs. 3,00,701/- (stamp duty/registration charges). As there is no mention in the purchase deed about the respective shares of the aforementioned co-owners/ purchasers, therefore, as per Section 45 of the Transfer Act, 1982 it is to be presumed that the said persons had equal interest in the subject property. For the sake of clarity, Section 45 of the Transfer Act, 1982 is culled out as under: "45. Joint transfer for consideration.- Where immoveable property is transferred for consideration to two or more persons and such consideration is paid out of a fund belonging to them in common, they are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, respectively entitled to interests in such property identical, as nearly as may be, with the interests to which they were respectively entitled in the fund; and, where such consider....