NISHA KAPISTALAMCHETLUR,TIRUPATI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act. The appeals pertain to AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, with common issues involved.
Held
The tribunal noted that the notices under section 148 were issued after the prescribed dates and without proper sanction as per amended law. It also considered grounds related to the AO treating the return as non-est, invalidity of assessment orders due to lack of valid notice under Section 143(2), and improper confirmation of additions regarding long-term capital gains.
Key Issues
Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by notices under Section 148 issued after prescribed timelines and without proper sanction; correct treatment of returns filed in response to such notices; and justification for additions made towards long-term capital gains.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 148A, 151, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 17/09/2025, which in turn arises from the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 31/03/2022 & 30/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1935/Hyd/2025 for AY 2013-14, wherein the impugned order of the CIT(A) has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal:
The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC is not correct either on facts or in law and in both.
The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the return filed on 13.12.2021 as non-est though it was a valid return filed in response to notice under Section 148 and in the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) the assessment order is null and void. 3. a) The notice under section 148 for A.Y. 2013-14, though digitally signed on 31.03.2021, was actually issued through the ITBA portal only on 01.04.2021, and having been issued after 31.03.2021 under the old law instead of the amended provisions of section 148 read with section 148A, the notice issued U/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 is invalid and renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. b) Since the notice was served after 01.04.2021 it is deemed to fall under the amended regime which mandates compliance with Section 148A and sanction under the new Section 151 and in the absence of such compliance the notice is invalid and the reassessment proceedings are void.
The reassessment notices for A.Y. 2013-14 under section 148, though dated 31.03.2021, was issued only on 01.04.2021 ie., beyond three years, without proper sanction under section 151 (ii) of the amended law, as approval was taken from the PCIT, Tirupati instead of the competent authority (PCCIT/CCIT), and hence the entire proceedings are void ab initio.
The Learned CITIA), NFAC was not justified in upholding the addition towards long-term capital gain ignoring the principle of consistency as the same transaction in the case of the assessee's sister Smt K Anusha (PAN: CHCPK3383F) was accepted by the Department in a speaking order passed U/s 147 r.w.a 144B on identical facts and this fact was duly brought to the notice of the CITIA) but was not considered rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable..
The learned CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,16,567 towards alleged long term capital gain treating the property as belonging to the individual ignoring that it was ancestral in nature belonging to the HUF headed by the appellant's father and supported by the Ryotwari Patta and Inam Deputy Tahsildar's order evidencing joint family ownership.
The learned CITIA), NFAC failed to appreciate that the sale transaction was executed through a GPA holder without knowledge or consent of the family and no sale consideration was ever received by the appellant and hence no capital gain could be said to have accrued or arisen.
The learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to consider the documentary evidences placed on record such as ACB freezing orders Sub-
