TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the Supreme Court order in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)/[2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC)/[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04-05-2022], a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued and thereafter the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26.07.2022, after taking the approval from the competent authority. Finally, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.07.2022, which was not complied with by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. assessee complied with the directions of the AO in notice u/s 142(1) and questionnaire and also various show cause notices issued by the AO. Finally, the income was assessed at Rs.9,22,33,123/- vide order dated 30.05.2023, passed u/s 147/ 144/144B of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was framing in consequence to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act which is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law as the same has been issued with the prior approval of ld. PCIT-1, Kolkata. The ld. AR submitted that the said approval is not in accordance with the Provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the facts of the case and also the ratio laid down in the above decision, we are inclined to quash the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act and also the consequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 147/144 of the Act. The ground no. 2(i) is accordingly allowed. 7. The issue raised in ground no. 2(vii) is against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO which is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law as it was passed by the AO sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act despite the assessee duly complying the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. As stated above notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.7.2022 which was complied by the assessee vide letter dated 24.08.2022 intimating the AO that the return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 30.4.2021 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. In our opinion this amounted to filing of return in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Once that communication is on record, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for the AO, however, the same has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucture Pvt. Ltd. ("BUUIPL") who was the original allottee and thereafter nominated M/s Creative Residency Pvt. Ltd. ("CRPL") on 20.07.2006 which is evidenced by promoters communications appearing at PB pages 14-15 of the paper book. The assessee agreed to acquire the flat from CRPL for Rs. 2,08,39,101/-, paying Rs. 2,03,00,000/- to CRPL through banking channels between 13.08.2012 and 12.09.2012 as evidenced by the Agreement to Sell dated 10.08.2012 attached at PB Page No. 16-19 of the paper book and bank statement appearing at PB Pages 20-21. The assessee paid a further sum of Rs. 6,06,695/- directly to BUUIPL the details whereof are appearing at PB Page 498 of the paper. Thus the assessee paid Rs. 2,09,06,695/- in all, during the financial year 2012-13. A Nomination Letter and Indemnity Bond dt. 18.09.2012 executed by CRPL are appearing at PB Pages 23-24 of the paper book. It was submitted before the AO that the appellant took physical possession on 13.03.2013 as is evident from the evidence filed at Page 68 of the paper book. It was also submitted that the assessee has borne the maintenance charges from that month, March 2013 which are available at pages 499-511 of the paper book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncurring the monthly maintenance charges since March 2013. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO is wrong and can not be sustained for the reasons that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were effective from assessment year 2014-15 and not from the instant assessment year at hand. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi v. ITO, Jamshedpur, ITA No.327/Ran/2018 dt. 20.01.2020 (Ranchi Trib.) wherein similar addition was deleted coordinate bench. The operative part of the decision is extracted as under: "6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue. In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without consideration, the provisions of pre-amended Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act would apply. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by....