9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. The name of the petitioner is mentioned as special power of attorney holder for his daughter. The registered sale deed clearly indicates that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the immovable property mentioned therein but it is his daughter, a separate assessee. The amount of consideration mentioned is Rs.40,00,000/- and it is stated that the purchaser had availed housing loan for the same. On a bare perusal of the registered sale deed, it becomes evident that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the said property as stated in the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961. Despite supplying copy of the registered sale deed to the AO, it has not been taken into consideration by him before passing the order under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree years. On this count, a case for interference has been made out. It would be futile to require the petitioner to face proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The material on record that was placed before the AO warranted consideration especially in the light of the fact that the document relied was a registered sale deed. If the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- mentioned therein is excluded from consideration, the notice as issued on 23.03.2022 falls foul of the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961. Hence for this reason, we do not find that the petitioner should be required to further contest the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The order passed under Section 148 A(d) as well as notice issued und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s executed in favour of his daughter who had purchased the suit property. The petitioner was only acting as special power of attorney holder for her. The amount of Rs.40,00,000/- did not belong to the assessee. As regards deposit of cash of Rs.16,20,000/- was concerned, the same was denied by the petitioner. He sought source of information as regards the aforesaid deposit. It was thus the case of the petitioner that after excluding the aforesaid two amounts, the income remaining was only to the extent of Rs.20,71,500/- which was less than the limit of Rs.50,00,000/- as stipulated in Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961. The Assessing Officer however did not accept the petitioner s explanation and on the basis of information available on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since this undisputed material was available on record with the Assessing Officer, there was no justification in permitting re-opening of the proceedings on this count. It was submitted that the petitioner would be required to contest proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 for no justifiable reason. On this count, it was submitted that this was a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order. 5. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. It was submitted at the outset that the petitioner could contest the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 and there was no reason to entertain the writ petition. There would be an opportunity for the petitioner to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is stated that the purchaser had availed housing loan for the same. On a bare perusal of the registered sale deed, it becomes evident that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the said property as stated in the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961. Despite supplying copy of the registered sale deed to the Assessing Officer, it has not been taken into consideration by him before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961. The same thus clearly indicates lack of application of judicious mind to the material on record. The amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as mentioned in the notice issued on 23.03.2022 under Section 148A(b) thus deserves to be excluded from consideration. 7. As regards deposit of cash of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile to require the petitioner to face proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The material on record that was placed before the Assessing Officer warranted consideration especially in the light of the fact that the document relied was a registered sale deed. If the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- mentioned therein is excluded from consideration, the notice as issued on 23.03.2022 falls foul of the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961. Hence for this reason, we do not find that the petitioner should be required to further contest the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. 9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as notice dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
