9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147 r.ws. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 11.01.2023. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of AO i.e., Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward 1(1), Chennai assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act for reopening of assessment without sanction of law and reopening as bad in law. For this, assessee has raised the following ground Nos. 8 to 10:- 8. The ITO, Int. Taxn Ward 1(1), Chennai / DRP failed to appreciate that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act was without sanction of law and ought to have appreciated that the consequential re-assessment order accordingly should be reckoned as bad in law. 9. The ITO, Int. Taxn Ward 1(1), Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order u/s. 144C r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 21.03.2022 wherein, he noted that the assessee should have admitted the value as per guideline value provided in TNREGINET as per Section 50C of the Act. Hence, accordingly he added additional income on account of capital gains u/s. 50C of the Act to the extent of Rs. 29.20 lakhs. Aggrieved against draft assessment order, assessee moved to Dispute Resolution Panel. The assessee raised objection before DRP for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and DRP vide order dated 14.12.2022 upheld the action of the AO in reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and approved the draft order of AO. For this, the DRP recorded as under:- 2.0 Grounds of Objection No.1: The Assessing Officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is rejected. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate appeared and drew our attention to assessee's paper-book consisting of 24 pages. The ld.counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to page 1 of screenshot of notice claimed to have been issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 19.03.2021 by the Revenue as reflecting in ITBA portal. He drew our attention to page 1 but stated that there is no notice available in the above portal as an attachment. The ld.counsel then took us through the notice issued by the AO dated 13.04.2021, which is enclosed at page 3 of assessee's paper-book and drew our attention to page 2 of assessee's paper-book whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l stated that this issue is no res-integra now because the CBDT in its instruction i.e., Instruction No.1/2022 [F.No.279/Misc/M-51/2022-ITJ] has issued clarification for implementation of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court was of extended re-assessment notice extended in term of Notification No.20/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 31.03.2021. He stated that there is no quarrel over the notification issued by CBDT but CBDT in its subsequent notification, issued clarification for implementation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra and cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "7.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that information and material is required to be provided in all cases within 30 days. However, it has also been noticed that notices cannot be issued in a case for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, if the income escaping assessment, in that case for that year, amounts to or is likely to amount to less than fifty lakh rupees. Hence, in order to reduce the compliance burden of assessees, it is clarified that information and material may not be provided in a case for AY 2013- 14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, if the income escaping assessment, in that case for that year, amounts to or is likely to amount to less than fifty lakh rupees. Separate instruction shall be issued regarding procedure for dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2021 Apart from this, he could not contest the issue or could not controvert the later instruction issued by CBDT clarifying the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra for implementation by lower authorities. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that admittedly the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act either on 19.03.2021 or 13.04.2021, whether these are issued on 19.03.2021 i.e., extended, that falls in extended period or fresh notice issued on 13.04.2021 is of no relevance for adjudication on this issue. In either of the notice, the assessment was framed and Revenue's contention is that the notices u/s. 148 of the Act is valid under the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
