9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y relied on the seized agreement of sale dated 6/1/2016. We find merit in the argument of the AR that section 153C of the Act overrides section 139, 147, 148 and 151 of the Act. Decision of the jurisdictional Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in the case of Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya vs. ACIT [ 2021 (5) TMI 26 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] wherein the Tribunal by relying on various High Court decisions has held that in the absence of any fresh information collected by the Ld. AO or no information has come to the notice of the Ld. AO in the normal course other than the information collected during the course of search from the search person, the Ld. AO ought to have made the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act and not u/s. 147. AO in the instant case ought to have resorted to make the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act whereby heavy reliance placed by the Ld. AO on the seized material. Further, the Ld. AO has not recorded about any information that has come to the notice of the Ld. AO and has solely relied on the seized documents from the premises of the searched person. We are therefore inclined to quash the assessment order as void-ab-initio and thereby allow the Ground No.2 raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. The assessee filed an explanatory reply dated 22/2/2018 before the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-IV(1), Vijayawada stating that he was engaged in Medical Profession in USA for the last thirty years and has been filing the return of income in USA from time to time. Out of the earnings and savings he made deposits in FCNR operated in Canara Bank, Venkateswara Puram, Vijayawada. He advanced amounts to his friend Mr. Muppavarapu Maheswara Reddy and no interest was charged on the same. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee in order to help his friend entered into an agreement for purchase of site to the extent of 31,594 sq yds for Rs. 7,89,85,000/- for the safety and security and to have commitment from Sri Maheswara Reddy. However, the Ld. AO has observed in his order that the assessee has not clearly explained the monetary transactions worth Rs. 7,89,85,000/- and based on the information transmitted by the Investigation Wing and with respect to the material available on record, the Ld. AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act with the prior approval of the Ld. Addl CIT (IT), Vijayawada and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 10/10/2019 which was served on the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of property. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not accepting the amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- paid by the father of the appellant as a source for the investment in purchase of property. 5. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 4. Grounds No. 1 5 are general in nature and therefore they need no adjudication. 5. Ground No.2 relates to the validity of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act where the assessment proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s. 153C of the Act. On this issue, Ld. AR argued that since the Ld. AO has acted based on the seized documents in the premises of the searched party, M/s. Yugandhar Housing Pvt Ltd., the assessment ought to have been framed u/s. 153C of the Act. The Ld. AR in this connection relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT (Central) Ors vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) Ors[2021] 432 ITR 0384 (Delhi) (ii) Decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench int eh case of Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya vs. ACIT and others in ITA No. 704 to 706/Viz/2019 and others, dated 27/04/2021. (iii) Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT. vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd reported in [2023] 454 ITR 0212 (SC) Further, the Ld. AR also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by relying on various High Court decisions has held that in the absence of any fresh information collected by the Ld. AO or no information has come to the notice of the Ld. AO in the normal course other than the information collected during the course of search from the search person, the Ld. AO ought to have made the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act and not u/s. 147 of the Act. Further, in a recent decision, the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT (supra) has held as under: 30. The argument that by enactment of Section 153A to 153D has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance the case of respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 148. On fulfillment of two conditions for invoking Section 153C the proceeding in accordance with Section 153A are to be initiated. The operating field of and Section 153A to 153D and Section 148 are different. Applicability of Section 153C in cases where the seized material related to or belonged to person other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otiose. Section 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
