9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- This Court is of the view that it would be apposite to set aside the impugned notice and the impugned order and to direct the AO to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner to respond to the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. This Court directs as under: (i) The Assessing Officer shall provide all documents considered by him as Information for initiating the re-assessment proceedings to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. (ii) The petitioner is given an opportunity to respond to the same within a period of one week thereafter. (iii) The Assessing Officer shall pass such order as it considers fit on receipt of the response of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered by the Supreme Court in Union of India Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 . 5. The controversy in the present case, essentially, relates to the sale of a property measuring 7756 sq. yards carved out of a land located in Bheemunipatnam Town, old Municipal Limits abetting Kummarepalem Road, Bheemunipatnam and within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (hereafter the property ). 6. The said property was sold by the petitioner to M/s Bhoomatha Real Estates and Developers (P) Ltd. (the Vendee ) in terms of a Sale Deed executed on 30.07.2015. The said Sale Deed indicates that a total sale consideration of ₹1,93,90,000/- was received for the said property. It also records that the Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the ITR. Hence, the above information suggests that the above amount of Rs. 1,93,90,000/- alongwith amount received in cash is your income which has escaped assessment. 9. The petitioner responded to the said notice by a letter dated 03.06.2022. He claimed that the property belonged to a HUF of which he was a Karta and the capital gains arising from the said transaction were duly disclosed in the returns of the HUF for the relevant Assessment Year. 10. In so far as the allegation regarding the receipt of the cash is concerned, the petitioner contended that a receipt of ₹12,19,500/- in cash is a mere surmise and does not have any link with the petitioner. 11. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
