TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 29.12.2023 and pertains to AY 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual & non-resident, presently residing in USA, purchased a plot situated at Shankar Hills Colony of Vattinagulappaly Village & Gramapanchayat, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Serlingampalli, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, registered vide document bearing No.5695/2016 dated 07.01.2016 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs whereas the stamp duty value of the property was determined at Rs. 70 lakhs. The assessee has not filed any Return of Income (RoI) for the impugned assessment year under consideration. The assessment has been reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information disseminated by the I & CI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see and also taken note of facts and observed that although, the assessee purchased property for a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs but the fair market value as per the SRO was at Rs. 70 lakhs and as per Section u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the difference amount of Rs. 50 lakhs is assessable as income of the assessee. Therefore, passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act on 29.09.2023 and made addition of Rs. 50 lakhs under the head 'income from other sources' u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP and raised various contentions including non-service of alleged notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021. The DRP issued directions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of notice issued beyond the due date is bad in law and liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kalyan Chillara v. DCIT reported in [2024] 465 ITR 0729. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sama Sangeeta Reddy v. DCIT in ITA No.680/Hyd/2025 order dated 24.09.2025. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the additions made by the AO submitted that the assessee had purchased only a title of the property without any physical possession which is evident from the relevant litigation pending before the Civil Court where many people have challenged the issue before the Civil Court and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice issued under the provisions of this Act which is required to be served upon him has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with provisions of the Act and therefore, subsequently, the assessee can't question service of notice, etc. Therefore, he submitted that there is no merit in legal ground taken by the assessee and the same should be rejected. 9. The Sr.AR for the Revenue, further submitted that the AO has rightly made addition of Rs. 50 lakhs u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and difference in sale value as per registered Sale Deed and fair market value of the property as per stamp duty payment and the same has not been properly explained by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly sustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25.04.2021. Further as per the ITBA portal screenshot, the Department claims that the above notice was served to the assessee on 25.04.2021. From the dispatch details of the Office of the AO and consignment track details of India Post, it is undisputedly clear that notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021 was not dispatched from the Office of the AO on or before 31.03.2021 which is due date for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the impugned assessment year. Although, the Department claims that once the notice has been dispatched from the Office of the AO on or before due date subsequent service of notice at a later date will not invalidate or notice issued by the AO and for this purpose, the Revenue took support from the provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stage, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kalyan Chillara (supra), where it has been clearly held that the requirement of issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as contemplated u/s. 149 of the Act is not mere signing of notice, but it should be sent to the proper person within the end of the relevant to assessment year. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court further held that "in order to determine when does "despatch", i.e., the transmission of electronic record or the notices in the present case, from the Department occurred, we may first note the precedence set by several High Courts in the context of Income Tax Business Application portal. Under section 13 of the Act of 2000, various High C....