TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 132 of the Act, was carried out on 29.3.2018 at the residential and business premises of husband of the assessee and his family members, including the assessee, which led to discovery of various incriminating documents/loose papers. Certain documents were seized. 5. As regards one of the documents numbered as Exhibit-01, page No. 1 to 10, Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order as under; "As regards document number AS, Exhibit-1, Page No. 1 to 10, though the assessee has shown a long term capital gain income on sale of building on 11.07.2017 for a consideration of Rs. 21 lac in her computation of income for A.Y. 2018-19 but she has not fully disclosed the sale value as per DLC rates applied by the Sub- registrar, Bhilwara. According to the registration document, the Sub- registrar has registered the value of house number G-250/7,8, Vaibhav Nagar, Bhilwara at Rs. 23,40,000/- and not Rs. 21 lac as shown in her working in the computation for A.Y. 2018-19. Thereby, the assessee has suppressed the sale value u/s 50C by Rs. 2,40,000/- and the same is deemed as her income for A.Υ. 2018-19 and added to her total income. Further, the undersigned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of the assessee. " 8. As noticed above, the appeal filed by the assessee against the said assessment order came to be dismissed by ld. CIT(Appeal), thereby upholding the assessment. 9. Hence, this appeal. Arguments heard. File perused. 10. As noticed above, it was in the course of search and seizure action carried out in respect of Sh. Deepak Samtani husband of the assessee-appellant and his family members, including the assessee, that certain documents/loose papers were recovered and the same included a sale deed in respect of immovable property situated in Bhaiva Nagar, Bhilwara. As per said sale deed, sale consideration of the said immovable property was Rs. 21,00,000/-. Admittedly, it is the assessee who had sold said property on 11th July, 2017. As claimed by the assessee, she had declared in the ITR, long term capital gain (LTCG) income on said sale, on the sale consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/-. Copy of ITR filed on 23.08.2018 also reveals this fact. As is available from the assessment order, Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not fully disclosed total sale value when calculated as per DLC rate applied by Sub-Registrar, Bhilwara. Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-. Accordingly, Learned CIT(A) has upheld the reasoning recorded by the Assessing Officer for making of addition of Rs. 2,40,000/-, and also upheld the assessment having regard to the fact that the value of stamp duty being Rs. 23,40,000/-was more than 110% of the sale value, and the provisions of section 50C of the Act. In the given facts and circumstances, and having regard to the documentary evidence, there is merit in the contention of learned DR for the Revenue that the assessee-appellant did not disclose the full sale value as per DLC rates applied in respect of the immovable property. 13. Learned AR for the appellant has contended that from the table available at the last page of the assessment order, it appears that the addition has been made due to undisclosed investment, and while resorting to the provisions of section 69 of the Act, but, this is a case falling within the ambit of section 50C of the Act. Reference has been made to para 5.2.2 of the impugned order by Learned CIT(A), wherein it stands observed that the Assessing Officer was not correct in applying provisions of section 69 of the Act and charging the income to tax under section 115BBE, and that Lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from extract of para 16 of said decision reproduced in para 4.4 the written submissions therein subject matter of dispute before the Appellate Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of the gift received by the appellant-assessee as his personal income under section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition could be made under section 69A of the Act, and as such it was held that Tribunal was not competent to make said addition under section 69A of the Act, and accordingly entire order of the Tribunal stood vitiated in law. We have given sufficient opportunity of being heard, to both the parties, deem it to be a fit case to pass orders while resorting to the appropriate provisions. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant so far as addition made u/s 50C is concerned. Additional Grounds 15. First additional ground raised on behalf of the assessee-appellant is that the impugned assessment order is a nullity as no DIN Number was generated as regards the assessment order, as prescribed by CBDT in its instructions issued to the Income Tax Authorities, which they are required to follow, but were no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xes are meant for compliance by the Income Tax Authorities. When the instructions were issued that such communications without DIN number shall be treated as 'non-est', and shall be deemed to have never been issued, same can safely be said to have been issued to ensure, and lay emphasis on, their compliance by the Income tax authorities, without fail. It is not the allegation of the appellant that no assessment proceedings were conducted by the Assessing Officer or that the impugned assessment order is a made up or forged and fabricated document. In absence of any such plea or material to suggest that any prejudice was caused to the assessee-appellant, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-appellant that because of non mentioning of DIN number. in the impugned assessment order, the same deserves to be set aside. Impugned assessment order not digitally signed-its impact 22. Another additional ground raised by Ld. AR for the appellant is that the impugned assessment order has been manually signed, and since same has not been digitally signed as required u/s 282 A of the Act and as per Instruction No. 6 dated 03.10.2017 issued by CBDT,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard of Direct Taxes are meant for compliance by the Income Tax Authorities. Same can safely be said to have been issued to ensure compliance and lay emphasis on their compliance by the Income tax authorities, without fail. It is not the allegation of the appellant that no assessment proceedings were conducted by the Assessing Officer or that the impugned assessment order is a made up or forged and fabricated document. Ld. AR for the appellant has not been able to satisfy if any prejudice was caused to the assessee-appellant for want of digital signatures on the impugned assessment order. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Prior approval u/s 153D of the Act, whether the same was granted mechanically? 27. Ld. AR for the appellant has contended that the impugned assessment order is nullity, being without jurisdiction, in as-much-as no prior approval, as mandated by section 153D of the Act, was obtained. At the same time, it has been contended that no approval u/s 153D of the Act was obtained from the specified authorities. Furthermore, it has even been contended that if the said approval was obtained, same was ....