2022 (4) TMI 855 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain - HELD THAT - AO in the instant case, on the basis of information obtained from CIB Wing of the Department that the assessee sold immovable property issued a verification letter u/s 133(6) of the Act to the assessee and in absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, reopened the case u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since, the assessee neither filed any return in response to notice u/s 148 nor cooperated during the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition from the sale consideration of ₹ 55 lakhs made addition to the returned income of the assessee - we find the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts i.e. validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition on merit. While doing so, he has given justifiable reasons for the same and has passed a very details order considering each and every aspect of the issue, we do not find any infirmity in the detailed order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition on merit in absence of any contrary material brought to my notice. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings.
2. Addition of ?44,09,836/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain.
3. Jurisdictional challenges regarding the issuance of notice under Section 148.
4. Transfer of the case without an order under Section 127.
5. Ownership of the property and the corresponding tax liability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from the CIB wing that the assessee had sold immovable property worth ?55,00,000/-. The AO issued verification letters under Section 133(6) to the address provided in the transfer deed. In the absence of a response, the AO reopened the case under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee contested the validity of the reassessment, arguing that the notice was out of jurisdiction and that he had not purchased any property for ?55,00,000/-. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment, stating that the AO had acted within his jurisdiction based on the address provided by the assessee himself and that the notice was correctly issued and served.

2. Addition of ?44,09,836/- on Account of Long Term Capital Gain:
The AO made an addition of ?44,09,836/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition from the sale consideration. The assessee argued that the property belonged to his wife and not to him. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, noting that the property was sold by the assessee, the sale consideration was received in his bank account, and the transfer deed was executed by him. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee and his wife were attempting to evade taxes by creating a misleading situation. The addition made by the AO was upheld.

3. Jurisdictional Challenges Regarding the Issuance of Notice Under Section 148:
The assessee claimed that the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and was not served upon him. The CIT(A) found that the AO had issued the notice based on the address available in the transfer deed and that the notice did not come back unserved. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's objections, stating that the AO had acted correctly based on the information available to him.

4. Transfer of the Case Without an Order Under Section 127:
The assessee argued that the transfer of the case was unauthorized as there was no express agreement between the jurisdictional CITs under Section 127. The CIT(A) held that there was no need for a CIT's order under Section 127 in this case, as the transfer was necessitated by the discovery of the correct jurisdictional details of the assessee.

5. Ownership of the Property and the Corresponding Tax Liability:
The assessee contended that the property belonged to his wife and not to him. The CIT(A) found that the assessee was the actual owner of the property, as evidenced by the transfer deed and the receipt of the sale consideration in his bank account. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee's wife was not the owner of the property and that the assessee was liable for the long-term capital gains tax.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s detailed order, finding no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings or the addition on merit. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the reassessment proceedings and addition of ?44,09,836/- were confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing correct and complete information to statutory authorities and held that the assessee could not evade tax liability by providing misleading information.