TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be held that the Ld. AO has not taken requisite sanction u/s 151 r.w.s 148A(d) r.w.s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment proceedings so initiated be kindly quashed and the Assessment so made be kindly annulled and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be held that the case so re- opened is against the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act since the income alleged to have been escaped from assessment is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Accordingly, the assessment proceedings so initiated be kindly quashed and the Assessment so made be kindly annulled and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : "M/s Nisarg Developers Vs. DCIT Circle 7, Pune (ITA No. 744/Pun/2024)- AY 2017-18 Ms/ V K Developers Vs DCIT Circle 3, Pune (ITA No. 923/Pun/2019)- AY 2016-17 M/s. City Corporation Limited Vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune (ITA No.619/PUN/2020)- AY 2015-16 M/s Buttepatil Properties Vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Pune (ITA No. 682/PUN/2018)- AY 2014-15 M/s Sai Bhargavanath Infra Vs. SCIT Circle 6, Pune (ITA No. 1332/PUN/2019)- ΑΥ 2015-16 M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Vs. DCIT (Bombay HC- WP No. 14178 of 2023) as a matter of judicial discipline Ld.CIT was required to follow Appellate authorities order- in context of retrospective applicability of tolerance limit u/s 43CA." Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2016-17 on 15.10.2016. Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 12.07.2017. The Assessee filed all the necessary details. Assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5%. The chart submitted by the assessee is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the order u/s. 148A(d), which is as under : Flat No. Agreement Value Market Price Difference % Difference 101 23,00,000 23,90,595 90,595 3.93% 202 27,10,100 28,38,000 1,27,900 4.72% Total 2,18,495 8. However, Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that Income chargeable to tax of Rs. 2,18,495/- has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued. 9. In this case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s. 148A based on the documents submitted by the Assessee during the original assessment proceedings. During the original assessment proceedings, the ITO, Ward-6(3), Pune had verified all these documents and passed the assessment order accepting the returned income. Therefore, issuing notice u/s. 148 and 148A based on the same facts, documents is nothing but change of opinion. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any new fact before issuing notice u/s. 148A of the Act. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to tax has escaped assessment." 11. Respectfully following Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we hold that notice u/s. 148 is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is allowed. 12. We have observed that in the order u/s. 148 dated 09.05.2023 Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 2,18,495/- u/s. 43CA of the Act. The difference between the Stamp Duty Value and agreement value as mentioned by the Assessing Officer is as under : Flat No. Agreement Value Market Price Difference % Difference 101 23,00,00 23,90,595/- 90,595/- 3.93% 202 27,10,100/- 28,38,000/- 1,27,900/- 4.72% TOTAL 2,18,495/- 13. Thus, it can be observed that the difference is less than 5%. ITAT Pune in the case of V. K. Developers Vs. ACIT in ITA No.923/PUN/2019 has held as under : "4. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant arguments as the legislature has incorporated similar tolerance margin(s) of 5 and 10% in section 50C(1), third proviso by the very Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2021. Case law [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO holds the same as having retrospective effect si....