9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit in the petitioner s contention that the second notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act must be viewed as a standalone notice and not in continuation of the first notice dated 31.03.2024. The short note filed on behalf of the Revenue also states that the notice dated 18.04.2024 (the second notice) issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act pertains to the commission income in connection with the search conducted on the JM Jain Group on 28.05.2022. It is relevant to note that the first notice (notice dated 31.03.2024) referred to lose papers and documents found during the course of search action in respect of SBP Group . Plainly, the information as mentioned in the second notice cannot be said to be in continuation of the information as referred to in the first notice. There is no dispute that if the second notice (notice dated 18.04.2024) issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act is considered as a standalone notice, the same would be beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149 (1) (a) of the Act as was in force at the material time. This is because the amount of income, which is alleged to have escaped income, is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and a period of more than t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 , 3, Kamal Complex, Plot no. 6, Local shopping center, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi (110092) dated 27.05.2019. As per the said agreement the land deal was finalized for Rs. 8,01,00,000/-. This agreement to sell was facilitated by M/s. Capital Properties and consultant (P) ltd. The said document is reproduced below for your kind information. *** *** *** 3. The above said information suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in this case for A.Y. 2020-21. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 148A(b),you are being provided an opportunity of being heard, to explain the treatment of commission received on brokering the above said property deal and thus show caused as to why the said commission should not be treated as your undisclosed income in A.Y. 2020-21. Please submit your reply stating the amount of commission received, mode of receipt of said commission, its treatment in your books etc., along-with relevant documentary evidence in support of your claim (if any), in compliance to this show cause notice. 4. It is apparent from the above that the AO s assumption that the petitioner s income had escaped assessment was premised on the basis of an Agreement to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The relevant extract of the said notice is set out below: 1. Information pertaining to the assessee has been received through the Insight Portal under the High risk CRIU/VRU information. *** *** *** 2. As per information available, it is found that during the search and seizure operation u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act'1961 dated 28.05.2022 was conducted at the premises of B-20, 1st floor, Surajmal Vihar, New Delhi-92 related to the partnership firm (M/s. Capital property Consultants) of Shri Lalit Kumar Popli, receipts for commission received were seized which contained details of commission received by M/s Capital property consultants from various parties. The detailed information is as under:- *** *** *** 3. Further, during the search and seizure operation u/s 132(4) of the Act, 1961 was also conducted in the case of Sh. Om Prakash Popli and certain other information with regard to the commission earned by firm M/s. Capital Property Consultants were received. The detailed information is as under:- *** *** *** 4. On perusal of the above information, it is found that during the year under consideration, you have earned a total commission of Rs. 29,87,213/- based on registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of Rs. 8,01,00,000/-. The AO had assumed that the petitioner had earned a commission on the said transaction, which had escaped assessment. There is no dispute that the said Agreement, which according to the AO, constituted information suggestive of the petitioner s income escaping assessment, was not acted upon. There is no dispute that the petitioner had responded to the notice dated 31.03.2024 confirming that the Agreement to Sell had not been acted upon. Further, confirmation from the parties with respect to the Agreement to Sell in question was also furnished. It is not disputed that the petitioner could not have earned any commission in respect of the transaction covered under the said Agreement to Sell. 13. The second notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act notice dated 18.04.2024 is clearly premised on information that was not the subject matter of the notice dated 31.03.2024. It is stated that the AO had, for the purposes of ascertaining whether the Agreement to Sell in question [Agreement to Sell between M/s.Subh Dev Associates (P.) Ltd. through its Director Sh. Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Harbans Lal (Seller) and Sh. Ram Swaroop Jayswal (Purchaser)] was acted upon, made inq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the petitioner s contention that the second notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act must be viewed as a standalone notice and not in continuation of the first notice dated 31.03.2024. 17. The short note filed on behalf of the Revenue also states that the notice dated 18.04.2024 (the second notice) issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act pertains to the commission income of Rs. 29,87,213/- in connection with the search conducted on the JM Jain Group on 28.05.2022. It is relevant to note that the first notice (notice dated 31.03.2024) referred to lose papers and documents found during the course of search action in respect of SBP Group . Plainly, the information as mentioned in the second notice cannot be said to be in continuation of the information as referred to in the first notice. 18. There is no dispute that if the second notice (notice dated 18.04.2024) issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act is considered as a standalone notice, the same would be beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149 (1) (a) of the Act as was in force at the material time. This is because the amount of income, which is alleged to have escaped income, is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
