AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has not replied to the query letter, notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2019 and sent to the assessee through speed post. Further, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and since there was no compliance, finally a show cause notice was issued u/s 144 of the Act. Since there was no compliance the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by considering the sale consideration as per the sale deed u/s 50C of the Act of Rs. 1.83 crores and he estimated the index cost of acquisition of Rs. 54.90 lakhs and proceeded to make the addition 50% of the above Long Term Capital Gain by earned the assessee at Rs. 64.05 lakhs. 4. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions and raised several issues on maintenance and reopening of the assessment and further filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A). A remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer objected to the acceptance of additional evidence at this stage and in response of above remand report assessee filed a detailed submissions which is reproduced at para 5.2 of the appellate order. After considering the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see which is evident from following facts:- * The proceedings initiated on the basis of Non-PAN Air Information. (115) * Notice physically signed and sent allegedly by speed post in 2019 at Flat No. B-267 Sector-50, Noida, which property stood sold in 2011. * The Deptt. was in the knowledge that B-267... was not in possession of the assessee in 2019 since on the basis of sale deed of B-267... Dtd.2011, the impugned 148 proceedings stood started. (13-62) * Even as per the reasons recorded on 20.03.19, the proceedings were initiated for taxing capital gain on sale of property No.B-267... (63) * The notice U/s.148 issued without PAN No. (1) * The last return (prior to 28.03.19 i.e. the date of 148 notice) was filed for A.Y.18-19 at "H-901 JMD Garden Sohna Road Sector-33 Gurgaon" on 20.07.18, hence this address was in the knowledge of Deptt. (5) * Assessee at that time was residing at H-901 JMD... which is also evident from the rent agreement Dtd.17.02.17. (7-12) * PAN No. was mentioned on the sale deed also as "AGRPM4551B". (13) * In PAN profile available on I.T. Portal the address as H-901JMD... [address....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 prior to 30th March, 2010, it is evident that the address of Assessee was BK-22, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110 052 which was available with the Department and, therefore, admittedly the notice was issued at wrong address Six year period from the end of the assessment year expired on 31" March, 2010. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eshaan Holding Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be said that valid notice was issued u/s 148 to assessee. "In favour of assessee G.No.2 Initiation of the asstt. On wrong facts - Mechanical - Without application of mind Reasons Factually Incorrect - The A.O. assumed that the assessee do not have any PAN No. (13)(64) - Further he reed. a Non-PAN AIR information. (113) - Hence A.O. assumed that no ITR has been filed and the capital gain has not been disclosed, being the only reason for initiating 148 proceedings. (63) Contention - Assessee has been regularly filing ITR at PAN No. AGRPM45518. - The ITR U/s.139 of impugned A.Y.12-13 filed on 18.12.12. (89) - In ITR, sale of this property st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has escaped assessment- No independent application of mind to information received from Directorate of Investigation and no prima facie opinion formed-reassessment order invalid. SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. (P) LTD. 329 ITR 110 (DEL.) No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing-Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed. G.No.3 Approval U/s.151 Mechanical Without application of mind - Borrowed one A. Without application of mind - Approval order U/s.151 at Pg. No.64 of P/B. (64) - It is as under:- "I am satisfied that this case is fit for issue of notice under section 148" (64) - From the approval it is not coming out that CIT(A), examined anything before granting the approval. - Further, the approval order is more or less same/similar as to the satisfaction of JCIT as recorded in Item No.12 of order U/s.151. (64) - Such mechanical and borrowed approval, without application of mind and without referring to relevant material is not valid in law. CASE LAWS ON - Approval UNITED ELECTRICAL COMPANY (P) LTD VS. CIT & ORS 258 ITR 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Contentions - The assessee declared the sale of property in regular ITR U/s.139. (100) - In ITR U/s. 139, LTCG declared at 'Zero' after claiming indexed cost of improvement at Rs. 55,26,495/- and by claiming exemption U/s.54 at Rs. 2,41,005/(100) - In R/R, * A.O. has admitted that he has verified the cost of acquisition as declared, (117)(65-85) * He denied for benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in the absence of documentary evidence. (117) * He also admitted for purchase of new property for Rs. 1.05 Cr. which is eligible U/s 54, however he mentioned that. Sec.54 benefit can be allowed only of Rs. 2,41,005/- as claimed by the assessee in regular ITR. (117)(86-88) - Hence declared cost of acquisition, declared sale price and the eligibility of claim U/s.54 stands admitted by the A.O. in R/R - Now, in ITR U/s.139, exemption U/s 54 was claimed for purchase of new property for Rs. 1.05 Cr. out of which, since by taking only Rs. 2,41,005/-, the LTCG stood calculated Nil, hence in ITR it was claimed at Rs. 2,41,005/- - Now, even if we ignore the indexed cost of improvement at Rs. 55,26,495/-, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cost of improvement in the original ROI and finally declared net Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,41,005/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 54 of the Act, that being the factual matrix available on record, we noticed that in remand report Assessing Officer has acknowledged the above facts on record and he was of the view that assessee has not substantiated the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement and also investment in new property in which assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. That being the fact available on record, we observed that the assessee has not changed his PAN Number, therefore, the information provided by the assessee is found to be true and genuine, merely on the basis of technicalities the submissions of the assessee was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of non-service of notice u/s 148 of the Act which is statutory notice which determines the actual jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. However, after considering the factual matrix available on record, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer has not served the notice u/s 148 which itself is without jurisdiction. Apart from that, we observed....