MOHAMMED RAUF FAROOK KHAN,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), THANE

The Order of the Authorities below, in so far as these are against the assessee, is opposed to law, weight of the evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

The appellant denies himself to be liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.99,24,310/- as against returned income of Rs.3,88,494/- as per the facts and circumstances of the case.

A The order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is barred by limitation under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the income alleged to have escaped assessment does not exceed the monetary threshold of Rs.50,00,000/-. The learned AO has erroneously considered the entire value of the immovable property while computing the limit under section 149, despite the fact that the property was jointly purchased and the nameof the co-owner (the appellant's wife) is clearly mentioned in the registered sale deed. The appellant's share in the investment is proportionate and falls below the specified threshold, and therefore, the extended time limit under section 149(1)(b) is not applicable. Hence, the initiation of proceedings and the order passed thereunder are bad in law and liable to be quashed. B. The assessing officer has not appreciated that the purported ‘Reasons' are No ‘Reasons' in the eyes of Law. The so called ‘Reasons' evidently do not show any application of mind on part of the ‘AO' much less evidence to show that 'satisfaction' has been arrived by the ‘AO' to show that any Income liable for Tax has escaped Assessment warranting recourse to Notice under section 148 of the Act. C. The learned AO has wrongly stated that the appellant did not file the return of income whereas the appellant has filed the return of income and received the intimation u/s 143(1) as well. D. The learned AO has misled himself in stating that the source of payment made towards purchase of an immovable property remains unexplained when the appellant has filed return of income for the past several years and paid for the purchase from the advance received from the buyers in the subsequent sale of the property. Entire payment need not be made in the year of purchase.

A. The learned AO has erred in applying the provisions of Section 50C and Section 56(2)(x) when the appellant had paid advance on agreement for sale in 2012 through bank wherethe guidance value was less than the purchase value. B. The learned CIT(A) misled himself in interpreting that “registered agreement" is needed whereas the agreement signed by both the Page 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan parties is sufficient to prove that there was an agreement as on the said date.

Brief facts are that the assessee filed the return for the relevant year declaring a total income of Rs.3,91,810/-. Subsequently, action u/s 148 of the Act was taken based on information was received by the AO which suggested during the year under consideration, the assessee purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.55,87,500/- from M/s Tejdeep Developers for Rs 55,87,500/- which was registered at Sub-