TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'Ld.CIT(A)'] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO') u/s 147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: (1) The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating and completing the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without fulfilling the mandatory jurisdictional conditions prescribed under the Act, and therefore the reassessment order passed is bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC, has further erred in law by upholding the validity of reassessment proceeding by setting aside the order for denovo fresh assessment. (2) Lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase is that assessee before us is an Individual. In the assessee's case, the Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee entered into transaction of an immovable property during the period under consideration. As per information, the assessee sold an immovable property with a sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide sale deed no. 1609, dated-09/04/2012, during the year under consideration. However, as per the Jantri value of stamp duty valuation authority, the fair market value of the said property comes to Rs. 4,44,898/- Thereby, there is a difference in sale consideration amount and jantri value adopted by stamp valuation authority which was observed by the assessing officer. The said difference is Rs. 2,44,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessing officer that assessee has no explanation w.r.t transaction in question, accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 4,44,898/- being fair market value of the property in question, as per the jantri value of stamp duty valuation authority, has remained unexplained, did not brought under tax net, therefore, the same was treated as income of the assessee for the period under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Further, aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard both the parties and carefull....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer are bad in law, hence reassessment proceedings should be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the assessee also argued that the sanction u/s 151 of the Act had following defects, viz: (i)the reopening in the instant case had been done beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore approval and sanction ought to have been granted only by learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) alone, while in this case the approval was taken from Joint CIT. Besides, there is no any quantifying the escapement of income and cryptic satisfaction note and without narrating any facts and case details and also does not bear the date of the signature of Hon'ble PCIT.It shows that the approval was mechanical which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No any verification or examination of sale deed was conducted by the assessing officer, before recording the reasons of reopening. There is also not a quantification of escapement of income hence the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are not in accordance with law. 11. Based on the above facts, I note that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and vague which are not sustainable in eyes of law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur, in the case of Shri Ram Mohan Rawat (ITA No. 1014/JP/2018, wherein it had asserted the importance of recording of correct 'reasons' and proper application of mind, while recording the same. In the said judgement reference to finding of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on this ....