NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

ITA 237/ASR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 April 2026AY 2012-1323 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nasa Agro Industries Private Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC for Assessment Year 2012-13, which arose from an order passed by the AO under Section 143(3)/147. The original assessment was completed with additions. Subsequently, the AO received information that the stamp duty value of leasehold land and buildings sold by the assessee was Rs. 3.80 crores, while the assessee disclosed Rs. 1.95 crores as sale proceeds. The assessee contended that Section 50C was not applicable to leasehold assets. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148, believing income had escaped assessment. The assessee argued that reassessment was illegal as it was based on a non-existent judicial precedent and that Section 50C was wrongly invoked. The assessee also claimed denial of a video conference hearing. The revenue contended that the issue of reassessment was not raised before the lower authorities and that the sale deed provided to the AO was incomplete.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue challenging the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 had not been adjudicated by the first appellate authority as it was not raised in the grounds of appeal before him. Given the contradictory claims by both parties regarding the completeness of the disclosure and the materials on record, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. first appellate authority. The first appellate authority is directed to adjudicate on this additional ground after consulting the assessment records or obtaining a report from the AO. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings by filing all necessary submissions. The assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including video hearing. The additional ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was illegal and void ab initio, based on a judicial precedent that did not exist at the time of initiation? (Question of law) 2. Whether the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were wrongly invoked for the sale of leasehold rights in land and building? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing through video conference? (Question of fact) Assessee's contentions: - Reassessment proceedings were illegal and void ab initio as they were initiated based on a non-existent judicial precedent. - Section 50C was wrongly invoked for the sale of leasehold rights in land and building. - The assessee was not allowed a video conference hearing. - The original assessment was completed accepting the sale value disclosed by the assessee, and reopening after four years constituted a change of opinion based on materials already on record, violating the first proviso to Section 147. Revenue's contentions: - The additional ground challenging the reassessment under Section 147 was not agitated before the AO or the first appellate authority and was not part of the original grounds of appeal. - There was no discussion in the assessment order regarding the availability of circle rates before the AO, and the amount was not disclosed in the return or computation. The circle rate was not reflected in the registered sale deed filed before the AO. - Information was gathered afresh post-assessment, and the registered sale deed filed was incomplete and ambiguous, lacking reflection of the stamp duty value. - There was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. - As per Explanation 1 to Section 147, a registered sale deed from which material evidence could have been discovered with due diligence by the AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 50C,Section 48,Section 45(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC dated 28/06/2023, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which has arisen out of the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act, 1961, dated 29/12/2018. 2. The grounds taken by the assesee in revised form 36, are as follows:

LT.A. No. 237/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2

“I. That learned CIT(A) has arbitrarily upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of recorded reasons of judicial precedent which did not exist at the time of initiation and thus proceedings are illegal and void ab initio

2.

That learned CIT

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →