TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case, failed to appreciate the fact that since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, themselves are not applicable to facts of the case, no addition whatsoever is warranted. 4. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,73,39,000/-u/s. 56(2)(vii) (b) ignoring the fact that there is no excess land received by the appellant. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in completely relying on the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer and accordingly, failed to appreciate the fact that excess land if any, received is due to shortfall of land received by the appellant's father and is at the expense of the share of her father that can be treated as a gift by father to his daughter (appellant) which is exempt from taxation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above ground (grounds)." 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 21.01.2017 declaring total income at Rs.8,17,240/ -. The case has been subsequently reopened ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere analysed along with reasons for reopening of the assessment. The assessee has mentioned that, there were 17 partners in the Firm, but, as per records there are 5 partners only. Further, assessee's contention that, the rate of the land be considered as per the Circle rate in 2004 is without any basis and so rejected. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,73,39,000/- u/sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details, even though, the case was listed for hearing on 6 occasions. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution by following Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., BN Bhattcharjee and Another [1977] 118 ITR 461 (SC) and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards consideration received in the form of immovable property u/sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hyd./2024, Order dated 20.06.2025. 6. Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, referring to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021 submitted that, the Assessing Officer has digitally signed the notice on 31st March, 2021 at 6.40 hours and once the Assessing Officer signed the notice, it automatically transmitted to the ITBA portal for onward transmission to the email of the assessee. Therefore, once notice has been issued on 31.03.2021 with digital signature, then, the subsequent delivery of mail on the next day i.e., on 01.04.2021 will not alter the date of notice and consequently, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021 is as per old regime of re-assessment proceedings as per section 148 of the Act and thus, the Assessing Officer is not required to follow the procedure provided under section 148A of the Act. Once the notice issued under section 148 is as per old regime of re-assessment, then, the approval taken by the Assessing Officer from the Pr. CIT is in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act and thus, the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that, the notice is in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....day i.e., on 01.04.2021 at 6.03 hours, in our considered view, it cannot be said that, notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 31.03.2021. 8. Having said so, let us come back, whether notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 01.04.2021 and subsequent procedure followed by the Assessing Officer including re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.03.2022 is in accordance with section 148 and 148A of the Act ? Admittedly, the provisions of section 148 has been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and as per the said amended provisions, any notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act on or after 01.04.2021 should be in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC). Further, as per section 148A of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of the specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of Kalyan Chillara by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 688 (SC). From the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, it is undisputedly clear that, once notice issued under section 148 of the Act after 01.04.2021, then, it should be as per the new regime of re- assessment proceedings provided under section 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, otherwise, the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per old regime is barred by limitation. Therefore, in our considered view, the notice issued under section 148 of the act dated 01.04.2021 without due procedure as per Section 148A of the Act is certainly void abinitio and liable to be quashed. 10. Coming back to the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that, once notice issued under section 148 of the Act was held to be as per new regime of re-assessment under section 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, then, the approval for issue of such notice should be from the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittedly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act, after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax [International Taxation]-2, Mumbai, dated 25.07.2022, but, as per the amended provisions of sec. 151(ii) of the Act, the Competent Authority for granting sanction u/sec. 151(ii) of the Act, in a case where the assessment has been reopened after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is Pr. CCIT or Pr. Director General of Income Tax, but, not CIT as considered by the learned Assessing Officer. This legal principle is supported by the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs., ITO [Intl. TAXN]-2, Hyderabad in ITA.No.986/Hyd./2024, dated 11.03.2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018, where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal by following certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd., vs., DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held as under "7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is a Non-Reside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has analysed the issue in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), relevant Circulars/Notifications issued by CBDT and provisions of Taxation and Other Laws Amendment Act, 2021 [in short "TOLA"] and after considering relevant facts held that after 01.04.2021, the New Regime has specified different authorities for granting sanction u/sec.151(ii) of the Act and in case the assessment is reopened after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, then the Specified Authority to grant sanction is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Director General of Income Tax. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 with the prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad accorded on 27.07.2022 vide Ref.F.No.Pr.CIT- 1/Hyd/ 147/2022-23. Therefore, in our considered view, notice issued by the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of section 151 and sanction of Specified Authority was to be obtained in accordance with the law existing when the sanction was obtained. It was further held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice beyond the period of three years, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we find no merits in the reliance placed by the Revenue on the provisions of TOLA. As, in the present case, the period of three years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and the order dated 23/05/2022 was passed under section 148A(d) of the Act after obtaining the approval of the Principal CIT-1, Mumbai vide letter dated 15/07/2022, we are of the considered view that the Revenue has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act while initiating the reassessment proceedings and sanction of the Specified Authority is not in conformity with the law prevalent at the time of grant of sanction." 7.4. In this view of ....