TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er such as details of foreign employment / earnings, foreign bank statements reflecting transfer of funds for investment in properties, foreign tax returns paid etc., during the course of assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings .? 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii) does not apply the assessee without appreciating the fact that both the registered sale deeds i.e. 2668/2016 and 2669/2016 categorically transfers all rights, title and interest in the properties in favoure of vendee i.e. the assessee and thus, assessee can be said to have received the property? 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in relying on the provisions of section 6(d) of Transfer of property Act when the same is with respect to only transfer of interest in enjoyment of property and not of entire ownership rights as in the present case? 5. Any other ground of appeal that may be reaised with the prior approval of the Hon'ble ITAT during the appellate proceedings. N.N. Chanf. (N. NARASIMHA CHARY) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the Inamdar and occupant/possessor of the land by virtue of will dated 13/06/1950. However, the Revenue authorities did not give Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of these persons and land is shown in the revenue record as Endowment land and these other persons are shown as encroachers of the land. These persons claiming themselves as owners of the land in question filed a Writ Petition against the order of the Revenue Authorities before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which is pending adjudication. Apart from the MOU dated 23/03/2016, the assessee and his father entered into 2 agreements of sale cum GPA both dated 21/03/2016 that these persons in respect of 2 parcels of land measuring 2.18 acres in Survey No.303 and 7.24 acres in Survey No.294 against the consideration which were paid through banking channels as recorded in these agreements of sale cum GPOA both dated 21/03/2016. He has further submitted that all these documents were presented before the Jt. Registrar, Balanagar and were duly registered on 24/03/2016 as document No.2668 of 2016 and 2669 of 2016 respectively. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that these documents were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 and even no return was filed in response se to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, when there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and no return of income was filed then, the objections raised by the assessee against the validity of the reopening of the assessment cannot be entertained and accepted. He has further submitted that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer having geographical jurisdiction over the PAN of the assessee and thereafter, when it was found that the assessee is a Non-Resident- Indian, the matter was transferred to the concerned Assessing Officer and Faceless Assessment Centre. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology dated 01/03/2023 in Special Leave Petition No.29304 of 2019 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the order of the Hon'ble High Court whereby the assessment order was quashed on the ground that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not adjudicated upon the return. The jurisdiction has been changed after the return was fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent can support the order of the learned CIT (A) against which the other party has filed the appeal on any of the ground decided against him. The scope of raising a plea under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to defend against the appeal filed by the other party and thereby if the issue raised by the respondent is decided in favour of the respondent may lead to failure of the appeal filed by the other party. Therefore, even if the issue which is raised by the respondent assessee is decided in favour of the assessee holding that the reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) would stand and will have full effect in so far as it is against the Revenue, but the assessee will succeed only to the extent that the appeal filed by the Revenue would fail. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.R. Bamasi vs. CIT reported in 83 ITR 223 has discussed the scope of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 as under: "But even if the assessee had not made such a statement, the above judgment shows that the assessee would be entitled to raise a new ground, provided it is a ground of law and does not necessitate any o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TDS was deducted u/s 195 of the Act. However, as the appellant had not filed his return of Income and as such the sources of investment in the immovable property remained un-explained. In view of the above proceedings under 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining the prior approval of competent authority and a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 30.03.2021. Subsequently a notice's/letters were issued in the course of assessment proceedings however there was no compliance to the notice/letter issued. As per the information the assessee had purchased two immovable properties, a property in Survey No.303 and another in Survey No. 294, Manchirevula village vide Doc No 2669/2016 & 2668/2016 dated 21.03.2016 for a total consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- for which the total Stamp Duty Value is Rs. 12,26,50,000/- as per SRO . The appellant did not submit any information in response to the notices issued. The AO issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.03.2022 proposing to treat Rs. 12,26,50,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs. 2,091 as income from other sources and complete the assessment. In response to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. In view of the above the claim of the assessee that transaction took place on 24.03.2016 is not correct as it is only the date of presentation of documents in the SRO office for registration. Therefore, the transaction falls in the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18. 6.2.2 Further it is seen from the AGPA Doc No. 2668/2016 that the market value of the land admeasuring Ac 2-18 gts is Rs. 2,45,00,000/- and the cheque's were dated 21.03.2016 for passing the total consideration amounting for Rs. 20,00,000/ -. As per the data uploaded by the SRO, the date of transaction was mentioned as 18.04.2016 in respect of the property in Sy No. 303 (AGPA Doc No. 2668/2016) purchased by the assessee, the date of registration of the transaction is 18.04.2016 and is evident from the endorsement of the SRO stamping which clearly mentions dated as 18.04.2016. Further the Challan payment for the Stamp Duty was paid not on 21.03.2016 as evident from the receipt dated 24.03.2016. Further, there is no clarity with regard to payment in the AGPA as the cheque is dated 21.03.2016 but the same appears to be post-dated cheque similar to AGPA document no.2669/2016 mentioned above. Since the SRO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... signed by the parties and presented for registration on 24/03/2016 and thereupon these documents were registered as document Nos. 2668 and 2669 of 2016 both dated 24/03/2016. Thus, in view of section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, the document is considered as executed on the date when it is signed and presented for registration. However, in the case in hand, the registration itself was completed on 24/04/2016, therefore, the transactions as per these documents would be considered on 24/03/2016. The learned CIT (A) has misdirected itself by taking the date of scanning as the date of registration as date of transaction. Accordingly, we accept this plea raised by the assessee that the reopening of the assessment for the year under consideration is not valid as the transaction as contemplated in the 2 agreements of sale cum GPA both dated 21/03/2016 were completed on the date when these documents were presented before the Jt. Sub Registrar and thereafter, registered on 24/03/2016 which falls in the financial year 2015-16 relevant to the A.Y 2016-17 and not in the financial year 2016-17 relevant to the A.Y 2017-18. Having held that the reopening of the assessment is not valid, the ....