9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022, therefore, the same, in our opinion, is barred by limitation and accordingly, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. We therefore, quash the re-assessment proceedings being barred by limitation. Since the assessee succeeds on this preliminary legal issue, the other grounds become academic in nature and therefore, are not being adjudicated. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President and Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA. For the Revenue : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR. ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30/01/2023 of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T. Act relating to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident individual for the A.Y. 2017-18. As per the information available with the Department, the assessee is a non-filer of Return of Income for the AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer noted from the copy of Sale Deed No.6433/2016 available with the department that the assessee, during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, purchased an immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at I had entered into sale deed registered vide Document No. 6433/2016 at SRO, Narapalli. The property purchased through above sale deed is under litigation. Copy of the petition filed before Junior Civil Judge, RR District is enclosed in this connection. In view of the litigation crept in the ownership of the property, I had not paid the consideration of Rs. 2,55,75,000/-. Since no consideration has been paid towards the Purchase of Immovable Property sources for the acquisition does not arise in the present case.... . 4. The assessee thereafter filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 and the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons for such reopening. 5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) 142(1) which were served on the assessee. He also asked the assessee to explain as to why the amount of Rs.2,55,75,000/- paid by him in cash towards the purchase of the immovable property should not be treated as his income in absence of proper explanation regarding the source of the same. Since the assessee did not respond to the said notice, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144. He observed that on 05/10/2016, a Sale Deed was execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd (Supra),the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted for adjudication. 12. The learned Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the DRP. He submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.2.2021 by the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation-1) Hyderabad. The time limit to complete the assessment as per the provisions of section 153(2) is 31.3.2022. However, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 144C of the Act on 30.01.2023. Referring to the provisions of section 153(2) of the Act, he submitted that no order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made u/s 147 after the expiry of 12 months from the end of financial year in which the notice u/s 148 was served on or after 1.4.2019. He submitted that if the contention of the Revenue in respect of service of notice on 24.2.2021 is considered to be duly served, the time limit to pass the final assessment order u/s 147 of the Act in the present case of the assessee lapses on 31.3.2022. Therefore, the assessment order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the Bench to the relevant extract of the order dated 13.08.2020 issued by the CBDT which reads as under: 17. He submitted that the above order u/s 119 of the Act only empowers the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to conduct assessment or to pass necessary orders as per the Act, however, the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 151A of the Act wherein with effect from 1.11.2020, any notice u/s 148 must be issued under the faceless assessment scheme through automatic allocation procedure in a faceless manner. Thus, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has failed to follow the procedure laid down in the Act as well as the CBDT Circular which is binding on the Revenue therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 18. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 69 of the Act can be invoked by the Assessing Officer only when the assessee made investment out of unexplained investment earned in India. However, in the instant case no such allegation was made by the Assessing Officer that the assessee earned income in India and out of that the invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investments are proved to be made out of income generated in India. 20. Referring to various other decisions to the above said proposition, he submitted that since the assessee during the impugned A.Y is a non-resident and that the provisions of section 69 of the Act are not applicable in the case of NRI as income is not generated in India, therefore, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer is not correct. 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee in yet another plank of argument submitted that the assessee during the impugned A.Y has entered into the sale deed registered vide document No.6433/2016 located at Jalpally Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District from 5 vendors. However, the agricultural land purchased through above sale deed is under litigation for which the assessee had not paid the consideration of Rs.2,55,75,000/-. He submitted that the assessee has filed a petition before the Jr. Civil Jude, RR District, copy of which is placed at Page 32 43 and also affidavits from the 5 vendors of the property confirming that the consideration has not been received by them. Under these circumstances, since no consideration has been paid towards purchase of the immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontents of the same could not be proved further and a civil suite filed by the 3rd party claiming the title to the said property after the registration of sale deed between the assessee and the vendors will not negate the contents of the sale deed. 23.1 It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. It is also his submission that the assessee being an NRI and settled in UAE does not have any economic activities in India, therefore, there cannot be any addition of unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee as these fall under article 22 of Indo-UAE DTAA which makes such income taxable in the country of residence i.e. UAE unless these investments are proved to be made out of income generated in India. 24. We find some merit in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the record shows that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.2.2021, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. There is no reference made to the TPO for making any adjustment of arm s length price of the international taxation. We find the provisions of section 153(2) read as under: 153. Time l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
