TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 29,50,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/-. Since the assessee failed to disclose any income from capital gains on sale of the above mentioned properties, the assessment was reopened u/sec.147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 26.03.2021. Since, there were no response from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act on 08.03.2022 calling the assessee to furnish his explanation. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted computation of income, sale deed and passport copy. In case of assessee's wife Smt. Haripriya Reddy also assessment proceedings u/sec.147 of the Act are pending. The Assessing Officer noted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondontion of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned in light of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer passed the Draft Assessment Order on 15.03.2022 u/sec.144C(1) of the Act. In the said Draft Assessment Order the has proposed to make assessee's ½ share long term capital gains addition of Rs. 68,06,390/-. 6. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that as per provisions of sec.144C(2), the assessee was required to file o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce between the actual sale value of Rs. 29,50,000 and Stamp duty value of Rs. 31,25,000/- resulting in a difference of Rs. 1,75,000/- into 2 units of Rs. 3,50,000 being proposed to be added to income, as the difference between the transaction value and the stamp duty value is less than ten percent. Besides the purchase of New Asset including improvements aggregates to Rs. 1,40,50,452/-(i.e. Rs. 70,25,276/- each) and hence full capital gains gets exemption. Notwithstanding our objection to section 50C, the total cost incurred on the purchase of the Residential House being Rs. 1,40,50,000 (i.e. Rs. 70,25,276 for each, ½ "2. Having considered the submissions, the Panel gets jurisdiction over a case when an 'eligible assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall be considered as date of filing of objections as per Rule 4. 7. The learned Assessing Officer based on the directions of DRP dated 01.11.2023 had passed the Final Assessment order on 02.11.2023. The submissions of the assessee are as under : (i) That the Final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 02.11.2023 was time barred as it was to be passed within one month from the date of passing of the Draft Assessment order dated 15.03.2023. Hence, the Final Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 02.11.2023 is not tenable in the eye of law. For the above purpose, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the provisions of sec.144C(3) and 144C(4) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment order in accordance with law within 30 days and has only filed Form passed by the Assessing Officer on 02.11.2023, is beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, the argument of the assessee, seems to be attractive and impressive. However, we have to see whether an assessee can challenge the Draft Assessment order/Final Assessment order having failed to file the objection within a period of 30 days. In our opinion, the assessee cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. The assessee cannot be permitted to raise this objection having failed in raising objection within 30 days before the Assessing Officer/DRP. The assessee cannot take benefit of latches/lapses and raise an objection now for not passing the order w....