TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spite the legal requirement for separate approvals. 3. The assessment under section 147 is bad in law, as the order under section 148A(d) was passed without considering the assessee's reply dated 17.03.2022submitted in response to the enquiry under section 148A(a). This jurisdictional defect has vitiated the entire reassessment process, defeating the legislative intent behind the scheme introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. 3.1 That the reopening u/s. 147 is bad in law, as the notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued based on incorrect facts and in violation of Instruction No.F.No.299/10/2022-Dir(Inv.III)/611|Dated: 01/08/2022. 4. That the assessment framed u/s. 147 is bad in law as the notice u/s. 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO. That the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO u/s. 148 is in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated in Notification No 18/2022 dated 29th March, 2022. 5. That the assessment u/s. 147 is bad in law, as the approval granted by the PCIT on 26.03. 2022 was mechanical and granted without due consideration of the submissions and information available on record. 6. That the addition made u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lakhs and the balance amount being paid jointly by the assessee (and her husband) from their respective savings bank accounts (as per details contained in page - 3 of appellate order). 3.2 However, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 1.19 crores (with an addition of Rs. 1.10 crores) as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, being the difference of the deed value and the value as per insight portal. 4. In course of first appeal, report from the DVO was obtained on remand where the valuation of the property was estimated at Rs. 93.15 lakhs, (against Rs. 1.50 crores as per portal) and consequently, the Ld. first appellate authority has allowed part relief, by reducing the addition to Rs. 53.15 lakhs. 5. Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 6. In course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book, consisting of copies of registered purchase deed (deed value being Rs. 40 lakhs and market value even less at 22.84 lakhs), copy of assessment order of the husband of the assessee for the same assessment year ( PAN AGZPB 3602J) where after full verification and examination of documents pert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distinguished ii. [2007] 158 Taxman 4 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennal v Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Capital gains-Computaion of-Assessment year 1995-96 Whether where during same assessment year, same quantity of wealth in possession of one co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax-Held, yes Assessee along with co-owners sold property and received its share of Rs. 6,85,28,195-Assessee, for purpose of capital gain, had taken value of property as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2,86,000 per ground based on valuer's report-Assessing Officer, based on wealth-tax assessment of other co-owner for assessment year 1992-93, adopted value at Rs. 70,000 per ground and computed long-term capital gains Tribunal deleted addition holding that Commissioner in case of co-owner dropped proceedings initiated under section 263 and accepted value shown by co-owner which was same as shown by assessee while arriving at capital gains assessable for assessment year 1995-96-Whether assessee was entitled to benefit enjoye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, the respondent Assessing Officer could not come to a conclusion that it is fit case to reopen the assessment on the ground that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. Under the circumstance, the very assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act on the part of the Assessing Officer while issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act is without authority of law and hence the same cannot be sustained. iii. 2026 (1) TMI 1300-ITAT DELHI Income Tax Officer, Ward 18 (3), New Delhi Versus Smt. Samiksha Mahajan And (Vice-Versa) Addition of unaccounted investment in property-AD on the basis of valuation report treated this as unexplained investment-Scope of Incriminating material in search assessments-While pledging the said property the assessee for the purpose of obtaining OD/CC facility from Indian Overseas Bank (10B), the assessee got the valuation prepared of this property-CIT(A) restricted addition -held that Assessee before the CIT(A) and now before us, contended that this valuation report was sent by the IOB to AO in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and there is no incriminating m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was to be dismissed-Held, yes" 8.1 The Ld. AR rested his arguments praying for deletion of the addition on merits as well as on the legal grounds. 9. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. first appellate authority and submitted that in the instant case reopening has been rightly done because reasons to believe are existing on the basis of information available in the insight portal and sufficiency and correctness of material is not a thing to be considered at this stage and it is always open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous and in support of his argument he relied on the decision of "Anshul Jain v PCIT (P & H) dated 2.06.2022 ", 9.1 However, on merits of the case the Ld. DR has not brought any material on record to prove the allegation of payment of any on money by the assessee, other than the declared value flowing from known sources of funds already accepted by the department. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and the contents of the paper book filed before us and we are of the view that there is absolutely no dispute regarding the declared value of Rs. 40 lakhs pai....