ABILASH RAO JOSEPH,USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
PER MANJUNATHA G. :
The above appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 29.12.2023
passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], relating to the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :
2
ITA.No.105/Hyd./2024
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed consequent to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is incorrect and unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs.26,37,000 by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(il) of the Income Tax Act which was introduced by Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1.4.2014. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the Appellant, admittedly, paid the consideration spanning over 5 years and the first of the payments was made in the Fy 2010-11 and AOS was entered into on 21.03.2012, during which period, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not on the Income Tax Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the authorities below failed to appreciate that since the part payment of consideration admittedly was made in the FY 2010-11, the stamp duty rates applicable to the said period ought to have been considered even if the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act are invoked. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the AO/DRP failed to appreciate that since the AOS of flat was entered into on 21.03.2012, the stamp duty rates applicable to the said period ought to have been considered even if the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are invoked. 5. Without prejudice to any of the above grounds, the AO/DRP ought to have referred the matter to valuation cell as the Appellant is not agreeing for applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
3
ITA.No.105/Hyd./2024
The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs.49,62,000 under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment made by the Appellant. The AO/DRP failed to appreciate the evidences filed by the Appellant before them explaining the sources for the consideration of Rs.49,62,000 paid. 7. Without prejudice to the above ground, the AO/DRP having admitted the factual position that the Appellant admittedly paid only Rs.10,09,937 during the previous year relevant to asst. year under consideration, should not have made addition of Rs.49,62,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed”.
1. The assessee has also pleaded the following additional ground of appeal in the instant appeal : “The assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is barred by limitation and non est in law, as the same is passed beyond the period of ONE YEAR from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued”. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and non-resident for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-2016. The assessment
4
ITA.No.105/Hyd./2024
has been subsequently reopened u/sec.147 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded, as per which, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of purchase of immovable property. Therefore, notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued.
Notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act and show cause notice were issued on 20.01.2023. However, in response to notices u/sec.148 and 142(1) of the Act, no compliance were made from the assessee apart from filing return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,08,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the return of income filed by the assessee is invalid because, the same has been filed beyond the due date provided u/sec.139 of the Act and notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act.
The Assessing Officer further noted that, during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee has purchased immovable property admeasuring 2235 sq. feet for a consideration of Rs.69,62,000/-, whereas, the Sub-