9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1558 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice has been issued beyond 3 years but not more than 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year - AO has reopened the assessee s case based on the information received from SRO office that the assessee has entered into a transaction for purchase of a property for a sale consideration of Rs. 80 lacs which according to the ld. AO was to be reckoned as Rs. 1, 12, 78, 500/- to be the stamp duty value thereby adding the difference - HELD THAT - Where the threshold limit of income which has escaped assessment cannot be lesser than Rs. 50 lacs as contemplated u/s. 149(1) of the Act. It is also evident that the said provision speaks of issuance of notice u/s. 148 and not the finality of the amount determined after assessment as contended by the DR. There is no iota of doubt that the criteria for issuance of notice u/s. 148 ought to have been income escaping assessment amounting to Rs. 50 lacs or more in cases where 3 years but not 10 years have elapsed from the end of the impugned year. In the present case in hand the assessee was in a better footing where the notice issued by the ld. AO u/s. 148 of the Act dated 15.06.2021 and the subsequent order dated 30.07.2022 passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was only for income which has escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 32, 78, 500/-. Therefore the assessee s case would squarely be covered by the decision of Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde 2022 (10) TMI 549 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . By respectfully following the same we are inclined to hold that the notice u/s. 148 and the order passed u/s. 148A(d) are void ab initio and are therefore quashed. Decided in a favour of assessee.
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter are as follows:
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid, particularly in light of the threshold limit of escaped income prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act for cases where more than three years but less than ten years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 32,78,500 under section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Act, representing the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration of an immovable property, is justified given the contention that the property was situated in a 'no development zone' with no access to municipal roads, thereby challenging the applicability of the ready reckoner rate. 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 87,93,925 under section 69 of the Act, representing unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property, is sustainable, considering the assessee's submission of documentary evidence substantiating the genuineness and source of investment. The Tribunal primarily focused on the first issue concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings, as the other issues became academic upon resolution of this legal question. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 148 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which allows reopening of assessments where the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Section 149(1)(b) specifically restricts the issuance of notice beyond three years but within ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the AO possesses evidence revealing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The provision states: "No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax... has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more." The Tribunal also relied on a binding precedent from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which held that the AO cannot issue a notice under section 148 if the escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs in cases where more than three years have elapsed. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO issued the reassessment notice based solely on the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration amounting to Rs. 32,78,500. The AO later made additions aggregating to Rs. 1,20,72,425 by including unexplained investment under section 69. However, the Tribunal clarified that the threshold test under section 149(1)(b) applies at the stage of issuance of the notice, not at the stage of final assessment. The initial material on which the AO formed the belief to reopen the assessment related only to Rs. 32,78,500, which is below the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold. The Tribunal emphasized the clear, unambiguous language of section 149(1)(b) and noted that the AO's jurisdiction to issue a notice beyond three years depends on possession of evidence showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more at the time of issuance of the notice. The subsequent additions made during reassessment cannot retrospectively validate the notice. Key Evidence and Findings: The reassessment notice dated 15.06.2021 and the subsequent order under section 148A(d) dated 30.07.2022 explicitly stated the escaped income as Rs. 32,78,500. There was no evidence on record that the AO possessed materials indicating escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more at the time of issuance of the notice. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the statutory threshold, the Tribunal found the reassessment notice invalid as it failed to meet the minimum escaped income limit of Rs. 50 lakhs required for reopening assessments beyond three years. The Tribunal distinguished the AO's later additions as irrelevant to the validity of the notice itself. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's argument, supported by the jurisdictional High Court decision, was accepted. The revenue's contention that the aggregate additions justified the reassessment was rejected on the ground that the threshold is determined at the time of issuance of the notice, not after the assessment order. Conclusion: The reassessment notice and consequential assessment order were held to be void ab initio and quashed. Addition under Section 56(2)(vi)(b) - Difference Between Stamp Duty Value and Sale Consideration Relevant Legal Framework: Section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act provides for taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration where the former exceeds the latter, treating the difference as income from other sources. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that the property was located in a 'no development zone' with no access to municipal roads, making the ready reckoner rate (stamp duty value) inapplicable for valuation. The first appellate authority upheld the addition, stating the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for the difference between the stamp duty value and sale consideration. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the ready reckoner rate was inapplicable due to the property's location and lack of development. The Tribunal did not proceed to examine this issue further as the reassessment itself was quashed on legal grounds. Application of Law to Facts: Since the reassessment was invalidated, the addition under section 56(2)(vi)(b) became academic and was not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. Addition under Section 69 - Unexplained Investment Relevant Legal Framework: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to make additions in respect of investments or assets unexplained by the assessee. Section 115BBE imposes a special tax rate on unexplained investments. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 87,93,925 on the ground that the assessee had filed relevant documentary evidence substantiating the genuineness and source of the investment, which was not presented before the AO due to paucity of time. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted documentary evidence to prove the source and genuineness of the investment in immovable property. The first appellate authority accepted this evidence, leading to deletion of the addition. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal did not examine this issue further as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on legal grounds. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue challenged the deletion of the addition, but since reassessment was invalidated, this challenge was dismissed. Conclusion: The addition under section 69 was deleted by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal did not interfere with this finding. Significant Holdings "The provision is clearly worded without any ambiguity per se, where the threshold limit of income which has escaped assessment cannot be lesser than Rs. 50 lakhs as contemplated u/s. 149(1) of the Act. It is also evident that the said provision speaks of issuance of notice u/s. 148 and not the finality of the amount determined after assessment as contended by the ld. DR." "By respectfully following the same, we are inclined to hold that the notice u/s. 148, dated 15.06.2021, and the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, 30.07.2022 are void ab initio and are therefore quashed." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue:
|
