AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axation Ward 2(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The ld. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate drew our attention to ground No. 6 and argued that the impugned assessment is not maintainable for non-mentioning of DIN as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. Further, he referred to page 36 of paper book and argued that the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer contains no DIN and the assessment made thereon is illegal and bad in law. 3. The ld. DR Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT referred to page 35 of the paper book and argued vehemently that DIN is very much issued for the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and on perusal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd various notifications issued there under, in accordance with the Board's instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 on the implementation of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 [2022 SCC Online SC 543 (Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal)], the assessee was provided with the information and material relied upon for issuance of extended reassessment notice with a request to furnish a reply on or before 15.06.2022 as to why a notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of information available on record. After considering the submission of the assessee, the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 after passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee to furnish reply and after considering the reply of the assessee, passed order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and also issued intimation letter as well as notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022. The ld. DR vehemently argued that by following due procedure as per amended provisions and as per directions contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Assessing Officer validly initiated the reassessment proceedings and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 22.12.2023 by passing draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act dated 26.03.2023 and pleaded to confirm the reassess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the reassessment proceedings as per amended provisions of section 147 of the Act and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act and the same stands confirmed. Thus, Grounds No. 3 to 8 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 12. Ground 9 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.. 1,18,85,600/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 13. A show cause notice was issued why the difference of Rs.. 1,18,85,600/- between guideline value as residential type-1 and market value for the property purchased as dry land should not be chargeable to tax. The assessee submitted his response, which is reflected at para 7 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer grossly erred in valuing the transaction and the DRP in confirming the proposed addition in the draft assessment order on account of difference between the market value of dry land and residential type-1 and prayed to allow ground No. 9 raised by the assessee. 15. The ld. DR Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT drew out attention to DRP order and submits that the panel, during the course of proceedings, directed the Assessing Officer to cause enquiry with the Sub-Registrar officer to determine the correct value as well as to obtain the details about the subjected land from concerned authorities. The Assessing Officer gathered the information by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act and drew our attention to par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/-, which is evident from page 5 of the sale deed. The market value of the said property is shown as Rs.. 2,61,60,000/-, which is evident from para 13 of the sale deed. On plain reading of page 12 of the said sale deed, the nature of the land is declared as Punjai land i.e., agricultural land. Accordingly, the stamp duty and registration fee were determined based on the said declaration as agricultural land, but not as residential type-1 land. The assessee also paid stamp duty and registration fee as determined by the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar accepted stamp duty and registration fee as paid by the assessee and the said sale deed was registered. Therefore, it clearly establishes the view of the Assessing Officer in reopening ass....