TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correct & on erroneous footing; without application of mind by the Ld. AO on borrowed satisfaction; merely on presumption & surmises; more so, addition has been made of 51,53,100/-; reopening u/s148/147 is invalid & is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted by Ld. PCIT u/s 151(1) in most mechanical & routine manner without application of mind on the wrong reasons recorded for Rs. 51,53,100/-, which is not valid; in absence of a valid approval as mandated by law u/s151(1), reopening u/s 147/148 is invalid, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. That the appeal order passed u/s 250 dated 30/07/2024 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and deserved to be quashed. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter either any of the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of appeal. 3. The aforesaid grounds No. 1 & 2 are revised by the assessee vide application dated 18.11.2024, the same is culled out as under: Revised Gr.No.1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 51,53,100 made u/s 69 on u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... absence of a valid approval as mandated by law u/s151, reopening u/s148/147would be invalid and would be liable to be quashed; relied on Kalpana Shantilal Haria(2017) (Born HC); 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of Transporting. As per information in possession of the Assessing Officer, being received from ACIT (Benami Prohibition), Raipur, C.G., it is revealed that the assessee had purchased immovable property valued at Rs. 51,88,101/- (Fair Market Value at Rs. 79,44,000/-) in FY 2010-11 at Kunkuni Village, Tahsil Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh in the name of Shri Bhanupratap Singh, S/o Shri Gajendra Singh, Vill- Faraswani, Tehsil- Dhabhra, Distt- Janjgir Champa. This information is brought to the notice of department by Shri Manish Kumar Bansal, as per his deposition recorded u/s 19(1) of the the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 (PBPT Act) on 26.02.2018, who confirmed that Shri Prem Singh Saluja (the assessee) has purchased land in the name of Shri Bhanupratap Singh and the payment thereof has been made in cash to the sellers. It is further noted by the Ld. AO, that the assessee had not filed his r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noted that Smt. Suvano Bai W/o Anjor Singh Aghariya, Rajghata, Kharsia in her statement before Benami Authority clearly stated that the assessee had contacted her for purchasing of her land. It is also stressed that neither Shri Bhanupratap Singh nor Shri Premsingh Saluja had retracted from the statements given before the Benami Authorities, therefore, it was the onus on Shri Premsingh Saluja to prove that he had not made the cash payment, however he failed to substantiate his claim and took the shelter behind Shri Gajendra Singh- the person already died. Ld. AO further interpreted the situation in terms of human probabilities, genuineness of the transaction and labelled the transaction as colourable device used by the assessee for evasion of taxes. Finally, Ld. AO concluded the assessment with the following observations: 10. In view of above discussion, it is proved that written submission of the assessee lacks any credible evidence and is just an attempt of after-thought and fabrication lacking any sound footing. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the aforesaid land properties valued at Rs. 51,53,100/- were purchased by the assessee during the relevant financial y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given. 5. The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would not amount to committing any illegality because the CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this Court, in the case of Popular Engineering Co. v. ITAT [2001] 248 ITR 577, has been rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A) as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating that the authority has considered the issue in controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has to affirm such an order it is not required to give separate reasons which may be require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned PCIT? However no such Form 4 & 5 could be located and it appears that neither the appellant submitted Form 4 with the proof of payment of taxes nor the Form 5 was issued. Hence this appeal is treated as normal appeal. It is pertinent to note here by filing Form 1 & 2, the appellant accepted the fact that the ownership of the land is with him, otherwise he would not have filed Form 1 & 2 to settle dispute. These from were filed by the appellant on his own volition can be construed as admission of ownership. Considering these facts and in absence of any evidence or document, the investment made by the appellant of Rs. 51,53,100/- remained unexplained from the income declared by the appellant in his ITR. 7.4 Accordingly, I agree with the findings given by the AO and confirm the addition made by the AO. The Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby dismissed. 10. Disappointed with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee carried the matter before us, which is under consideration in the present case. 11. At the outset, Ld. AR requested to withdraw the additional ground no. 2 of the present appeal by endorsing to that effect, signed with a remark "not pressed". Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through letter was forwarded to the Ld. AO by the office of Ld. Pr. PCIT on 31.03.2018 enclosing therewith copy of approval u/s 151, wherein Ld. Pr. CIT has granted the approval under his hand written satisfaction without any date, therefore, it can be inferred that the date of approval was 29.03.2018, which was on the ITBA portal of the department, therefore, the Ld. AO was well informed on 29.03.2018 itself to issue the notice u/s 148. In view of such facts on record, we found substance in the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR that the notice u/s 148 was issued under proper compliance of the pre-requisite conditions to obtain approval u/s 151 as per mandate of law, therefore, the contention raised by the ld. AR that the approval u/s 151 was granted after issuance of notice u/s 148 is found to be misplaced, bereft of merits / substance, accordingly, the same does not qualified to be subscribed to. In result, additional ground no. 1 of the present appeal raised by the assessee, stands dismissed. 16. On merits, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the matter was adjudicated u/s 26(3) of the PBPT Act, 1988, wherein an order was passed u/s 26(3) of the PBPT Act vide order Ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering, New Delhi (in short "ATPML"), vide appeal no. FPA-PBPT/1042/2020/218 filed on 20.01.2020, and the matter is pending for the consideration of Hon'ble ATPML at Delhi, therefore, the issue may be decided on after the findings of Hon'ble ATPML in the matter. Ld. AR further submitted that as per order of adjudicating authority dated 26.06.2019, the transaction has been held as benami transaction in the name of Benamidar Mr. Bhanupratap Singh for the benefit of beneficiaries Mr. Premsingh and M/s Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. In view of such order, assessee Mr. Premsingh Saluja only cannot be held to be the assessee in default for the purpose of additions under the Income Tax Act, on this count also the matter needs to be kept in abeyance till the final verdict of Hon'ble ATPML is pronounced. With such submissions, it was the prayer by the Ld. AR that as the subject transaction of land purchase is still under the consideration of Hon'ble ATPML, therefore, at this stage no additions should be sustained in the hands of assessee Shri Premsingh Saluja. 18. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that before Ld. CIT(A) it is reveal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f u/s 2(9)(a) of the PBPT Act, Mr. Bhanupratap Singh is Benamidar and Mr. Premsingh Saluja (assessee) along with M/s Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd are held as beneficial owners. Such verdict by the adjudicating authority, PBPT, Zone Raipur exhibits that the assessee in present case i.e., Mr. Premsingh Saluja is not the only beneficial owner, whereas M/s Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd is also a beneficial owner in the impugned benami transaction. Considering the decision of adjudicating authority PBPT, the entire addition of the transaction for Rs. 51,53,100/- cannot be made in the hands of assessee, treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the same needs to be allocated between the joint beneficial owners, as emerging from the order under PBPT Act, dated 20.06.2019. It would be pertinent to note that since (i) the assessee along with (ii) the Benamidar Mr. Bhanupratap Singh and (iii) the other beneficial owner M/s Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd, as joint appellant had filed an appeal challenging the decision of adjudicating authority, PBPT dated 20.06.2019, before the ATPML, New Delhi and Shri Dharam Singh Meena, IRS, Initiating Officer, ACIT, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2025. ============= Document 1 HTul Tione Govt. of India fax surer: Twee forHer . Ministry of Finance: Department of Revenue wafera smane arfingret-1 : OFFICE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-1 4. - (.)Aayakar Bhawan, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh(C.G.) wsta (Phone) : 07762-222893. - tar (E-mail) : [email protected] F.No.ITO-1/RGH/ITAT/2024-25/ Dette: 07/01/2025 To. The Addi. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT-DR, Raipur (C.G.) Madam, Sub :- Submission of report in the case of Prem Singh Saluja, PAN: AUWPS9219D for A.Y.2011-12 - regarding. Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject. The detailed report is submitted us under for kind perusal and consideration. In the instant case, an information has been received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Raipur that the assessee had purchased immovable property valued at 51,88,101/- (FMV Rs. 79,44,000/-) during the F.Y. 2010-11 at Kunkuni village, Tahsil - Kharsia Distt Raigarh in the name of Shri Bhanupratap Singh, S/o Shri Gajendra, Vill-Faraswani, Tehsil-Dhabhru, Distt-Janggir Champa,....