LATE MRS. BHAKTI UNMESH BELGIKAR (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR UNMESH BELGIKAR),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 on 25-11-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 02-12-2023.

ITA No. 3215/PUN/2025

During FY. 2005-06, the assessee and her spouse jointly purchased residential property for Rs. 2,20,000/- at Talegaon. The entire purchase consideration was paid from the income of her spouse. The purchase deed of the residential property has been attached. During the FY. 2017-18, the said property at Talegaon was sold for Rs. 52,00,000/-. Out of the sale proceeds, a new residential property was purchased for Rs. 48,00,000/- (plus Rs. 3,18,000 towards stamp duty and registration charges, totalling Rs. 51,18,000/-) at Kothrud, Pune, vide deed of sale dt. 06-01-2018. The sale deed of the old residential property and purchase deed of the new residential property has been attached as enclosures. Although the AO claims to have issued a show cause notice u/s. 148A, the said notice was not served upon the assessee on e-mail, neither there is any proof of valid physical service on record, rendering the entire re-assessment proceedings void ab initio for breach of the mandatory pre- condition of proper service of notice u/s. 148A of the Act. The order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, 06-04-2022 for AY. 2018-19 has been approved by the Pr.CIT. It is bad in law as approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner was required after three years from the end of assessment year. The Ld.AR relied on the case law filed on the paper book. Ld.AR submitted that assessee had sold property and the said amount has been invested in new property. The entire transaction has been shown by her husband in the return of income and hence, there is no question of escapement of income by the assessee. Therefore, addition in the assessment order may be deleted.

4.1. In this case, AO has alleged escapement of income and issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and then passed order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on

ITA No. 3215/PUN/2025

06-04-2022, then the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 07-04-2022. All these facts are mentioned in the assessment order. The information which was in the custody of the AO based on Insight Portal of the Income Tax Department has been reproduced by the AO in the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, which is at pg. No. 80-82 of the paper book. The said chart is scanned and reproduced here:

4.2. Thus, in the name of information, AO had only above referred chart which was provided by insight portal of the Income Tax Department. We have read the entire order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and noted that the AO has not bothered to obtain copy of the above mentioned purchase deeds and sale deeds which were duly registered. It was mandatory for AO to verify the details before issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. But, the AO had not done anything.

4.3. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar vs. ITO, [2024] 164 taxmann.com 352 (Bombay) has held as under: Quote“19. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find that even such reasoning is fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub Registrar's for any registration is duly transmitted to the respondents. The execution of such Sale Deed was already on record. In such a case if the respondents fail to take note of the document which was available for transmission to the respondents from the Sub-Registrar's office, in our view, the assumption of jurisdiction will have to be regarded as erroneous. In any case, we find that at the time of passing of the order dated 16.07.2021, the Sale Deeds (which were available) ought to have been taken into consideration.”Unquote

ITA No. 3215/PUN/2025

Thus, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that if the AO fails to take note of the registered sale deeds, which were available with the Registrar and could have been obtained by the AO easily, then assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act is erroneous.

4.4. In the case of the assessee, it is observed that Mr. Unmesh S. Belgikar, PAN: AGVPB7614A and Mrs. Bhakti Unmesh Belgikar, vide the said deed of sale dt. 23-11-2017 sold residential property situated at Talegaon for a consideration of Rs. 52 lakhs. It is specifically mentioned in the said registered deed of sale that Rs. 52 lakhs were received as under: i. Rs. 10 lakhs by cheque on 15-04-2017; ii. Rs. 19,48,000/- RTGS on 27-09-2017; iii. Rs. 22 lakhs by cheque on 14-11-2017; iv. Rs. 52,000/- dt. 29-04-2017 Thus, entire Rs. 52 lakhs were received by Unmesh S. Belgikar and Mrs. Bhakti Unmesh Belgikar on or before 14-11-2017. All these facts are mentioned in the registered sale deed.

4.5. Mr.Unmesh S. Belgikar and Mrs. Bhakti Unmesh Belgikar purchased Flat No. 6, Kothrud, Pune, vide deed of sale dt. 06-01-2018 for Rs. 48 lakhs. The payments of Rs. 48 lakhs were made as under: i. Rs. 7 lakhs RTGS on 29-06-2017 and 30-06-2017; ii. Rs. 10 lakhs RTGS on 03-10-2017; iii. Rs. 5 lakhs RTGS on 31-10-2017 iv. Rs. 20 lakhs RTGS on 20-12-2017 v. Rs. 6 lakhs RTGS on 26-12-2017 4.6. All these details are mentioned in the registered sale deed. On perusal of the above details, it can be easily inferred that Rs. 52 lakhs which was received was invested immediately. Therefore, had the AO obtained copy of these sale deeds from the office of the Sub-Registrar, the AO would have understood source of investment.

4.7. It has been submitted by the Ld.AR that assessee’s husband had actually made all the investments and assessee’s name was merely added. Mr. Unmesh S. Belgikar, assessee’s husband had filed return of income for AY. 2018-19 on 21-07-2018 u/s. 139(1) of the Act within the statutory

ITA No. 3215/PUN/2025

time limit, disclosing the long term capital gain. As per the return of income of Mr. Unmesh S. Belgikar, his AO was ITO, Ward-10(4), Pune, whereas AO of Mrs. Bhakti Belgikar was ITO, Ward-10(1), Pune. Thus, both Mr. Unmesh S. Belgikar and Mrs. Bhakti Unmesh Belgikar were assessed to tax in Range-10, Pune. In spite of that, the ITO had not bothered to verify the basic facts.

4.8. In the assessment order, the ITO had made an addition of Rs. 80,88,650/-. AO had added receipts as well as payments. However, we have reproduced all the details above and it is clear that Rs. 52 lakhs of sale proceeds were invested in purchasing new residential property. The entire transaction has been disclosed by assessee’s husband in his return of income. These facts have not been challenged by the Ld.DR. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that addition of Rs. 80,88,650/- cannot be sustained and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 80,88,650/-. In the result, Ground Nos. 4 & 5 raised by the assessee are allowed.

ITA No. 3215/PUN/2025

5.1. It can be observed that order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, dt. 06-04-2022 for AY. 2018-19 was approved by the PCIT, Pune-3. Thus, after a lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year, the PCIT has approved order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, which is bad in law. As per section 151(ii) of the Act, after the lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year, approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner is required.

5.2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 178 (Bombay) has held as under:

Quote “1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner has also impugned the notice dated 17th March 2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Various grounds have been raised but one of the primary grounds for challenging the notice under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 of the Act both dated 7th April 2022 is that order as well as the notice both mention the authority that has granted approval, is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT"), Mumbai 5 and the approval has been granted on 7th April 2022. 2. Mr. Gandhi is correct in saying that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018- 19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act both are quashed and set aside.” Unquote. 5.3. In the above referred decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the assessment year involved is A.Y.2018-19 and order udder section 148A(d) of the Act, was passed on 07-04-2022. In the case of the assessee, the assessment year is A.Y.2018-19 and order under section 148A(d) of the Act, is dated 06-04-2022. Therefore, the facts are absolutely identical.

5.4. Similarly, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company vs. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 453 (Madras), has held as under:

ITA No. 3215/PUN/2025

Quote “…148 notice was issued on 25.07.2022, which is beyond the period of three years. So admittedly, the approval has to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as defined under Section 151(ii). But, in the present case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner in terms of Section 151(i) and no approval was obtained before issuance of 148 notice in terms of provision of Section 151(ii), which is mandatory. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was issued in the present case in violation of provision of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, the initiation of proceedings itself is without any jurisdiction. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.05.2023 is hereby quashed” Unquote

5.5. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra), the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and notice under section 148 are quashed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 25-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune