9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice u/s 148 vs. u/s 153C. 2. Quantum of addition on account of unaccounted consideration. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 vs. u/s 153C The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not competent to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that the case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153C. The assessee's counsel emphasized that sections 148 and 153C operate in different fields, citing the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Ramballabh Gupta vs. ACIT. The CIT(DR) countered that the seized documents belonged to M/s Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd. and not the assessee, justifying the notice u/s 148. The Tribunal held that the necessary ingredients prescribed in section 148 were satisfied, and the initiation of re-assessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 148 was valid. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Ramballabh Gupta, noting that the assessee was not subjected to a search, and thus, section 153C was not applicable. Issue 2: Quantum of addition on account of unaccounted consideration The assessee argued that the statement by Shri Kiran H. Shah, Director of M/s Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd., was retracted and that the corresponding expenditure in the buyer's assessment was less than the amount considered in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, stating that the addition in the assessee's hands should correspond to what is considered in the buyer's hands. The Tribunal set aside this aspect back to the AO to re-compute the income from the sale of the Matunga property in conformity with the amount considered in the buyer's assessment, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal validating the notice u/s 148 and directing the AO to re-compute the income from the sale of the Matunga property in line with the buyer's assessment.
|
