DHANUSHKODI HARIDEERTHAM,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXNL WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

The ld. DR Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT referred to page 35 of the paper book and argued vehemently that DIN is very much issued for the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and on perusal of page 35 & 36 of the paper book, we note that DIN is mentioned in the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and it is clear from page 35 of the paper book. Therefore, ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and requires no adjudication.

Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, it was submitted that there is no relevancy and requested to dismiss the same as not pressed.

Ground No. 3 to 8 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a non- resident, engaged in the business of running manpower agency. The assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of ₹.2,30,000/- and the Assessing Officer accepted the same by completing the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.07.2016. As the matter stood thus, the Revenue audit party raised objection regarding incorrect classification and computation of capital gain, in pursuance of the same, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.04.2021. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 13.10.2021. Since, the said case was reopened during the period beginning on 01.04.2021 and ending with 30.06.2021, within the time extended by the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and various notifications issued there under, in accordance with the Board’s instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 on the implementation of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 [2022 SCC Online SC 543 (Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal)], the assessee was provided with the information and material relied upon for issuance of extended reassessment notice with a request to furnish a reply on or before 15.06.2022 as to why a notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of I.T.A. No.214/Chny/24 4 information available on record. After considering the submission of the assessee, the case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 after passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 28.07.2022. 8. The ld. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate agitated the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act and submits that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.07.2022 is barred by limitation under section 149 of the Act. He further submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) has no application to the facts of the assessee’s case. He argued that initiating reassessment proceedings, without fulfilling the precondition of possessing the information contemplated in Explanation 1 to section 148 of the Act as well as under section 149(1)(b) of the Act, is bad in law and prayed to quash the reassessment proceedings.

The ld. DR Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT submits that as per post amendment to section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 2021, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2021 proposing for reopening assessment and required the assessee to file the return for AY 2014-15. The ld. DR drew

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that in order to bring to tax the income chargeable to tax

Upon perusal of the letter dated 01.06.2022 issued by the Assessing Officer and thereupon reply of the assessee, order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 28.07.2022, we find that the Assessing Officer has legally initiated the reassessment proceedings as per amended provisions of section 147 of the Act and I.T.A. No.214/Chny/24 7 completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act and the same stands confirmed. Thus, Grounds No. 3 to 8 raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Ground 9 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹.1,18,85,600/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

A show cause notice was issued why the difference of ₹.1,18,85,600/- between guideline value as residential type-1 and market value for the property purchased as dry land should not be chargeable to tax. The assessee submitted his response, which is reflected at para 7 of the draft assessment order, whereas, the Assessing Officer held the same is not acceptable and proceeded to treat the same as income from other sources on account of the difference of value between the residential type-1 and dry land. The DRP upheld the view of the Income Tax Officer [International Taxation]. The Assessing Officer, in accordance with the direction of the DRP, passed final assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before us.