TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing an ex-parte appellate order without even having adjudicated upon Grounds of Appeal raised before him. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed in appreciating that Ld. JAO has erred in initiating the proceedings and Ld. FAO in completing the same in a very high pitched manner without appreciating the facts of the case as well as law. Without prejudice to the above the appellant submits that 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. JAO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act, dated 08/04/2022, without an approval from Hon'ble PCCIT as per provisions of Sec 151(ii) of the I.T. Act. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed to appre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time or before the hearing of this appeal. 9. The appellant therefore prays that the assessment proceedings initiated & the consequential assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 not being in accordance with the provisions of law, and also the order passed by Hon'ble CIT(A) deserves to be and may please be quashed and / or the addition made without appreciating the facts of the case and law may please be deleted & obliged." 2. We note that the impugned order has been passed ex parte by the Ld.CIT(A). However, vide Ground No. 3 has raised a pure legal issue relating to validity of approval granted u/s 151 of the Act and all relevant materials necessary for adjudication are already available on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under consideration. It was further contended that the provisions of section 50C were not applicable and alternatively the stamp duty valuation as applicable in F.Y. 1995-96 ought to have been considered. The assessee also contended that the entire consideration of Rs. 57,66,000/- had already been subjected to tax in the hands of another co-owner namely Shri Nitesh Rane and therefore any further addition would result in double taxation. 3.2. The Ld. AO, however, rejected the explanations furnished by the assessee and treated proportionate consideration attributable to the assessee at 25% of Rs. 57,66,000/-. By invoking provisions of section 50C, the Ld. AO computed short term capital gains at Rs. 28,03,500/- in the hands of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice." 7.2.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that section 151 of the new regime links the time limits with jurisdiction of the authority granting sanction and non-compliance with the prescribed requirement affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 148. 7.3. The assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The Court observed that the safeguards introduced under the amended reassessment provisions are substantive in nature and must be strictly adhered to by the Revenue authorities. It was held that sanction by an authority lower than the prescribed authority cannot cure the jurisdictional defect and consequently the notice issued u/s 148 was liable to be quashed. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar v. NFAC reported in (2023) 149 taxmann.com 26: In this decision, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court considered validity of ex parte appellate proceedings before NFAC. The Court observed that principles of natural justice are integral to faceless assessment and appellate mechanisms. It was held that dismissal of a....