SMT. S. SOUNDARAM (INDIVIDUAL),NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-4,, NAMAKKAL

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem, both dated 20.03.2020 relevant to the assessment years 2013- 14 and 2014-15 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 60 days in filing the appeal due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

Facts are, in brief, that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has filed her return of income without disclosing purchase of immovable property of ₹.1,18,80,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and in response to the notice, the assessee has filed her return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 admitting a total income of ₹.8,81,610/- on 13.09.2017. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act and after examining the purchase deed and explanation for the source of purchase of immovable property, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

Subsequently, the ld. PCIT issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not examined the sale consideration as per section 56(2) of the Act by recording the reasons as under: “On perusal of the particulars, it is found that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs.1,18,80,000/- along with six other members, however, the assessee did not disclose the same in his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The case was reopened u/s. 147 and the reopened assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 14.12.2017, accepting the income returned. On scrutinizing the assessment records, the assessee has not offered the revised stamp duty value of the immovable property purchased as “income from other sources” as per section 56(2). On considering the above the total income escaped in the whole transaction works out to Rs.3,41,72,960/- and the 1/7th share of the assessee out of this is Rs.48,81,850/-.”

Since the assessee has neither appeared nor furnished any written submission in response to the above notice dated 05.03.2020, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment on the ground that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in terms of application of provisions of section 56(2) of the Act.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is came into effect only from the assessment year 2014-15 and thus, not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 and prayed for quashing the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. PCIT.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee has purchased an immovable property for a consideration of ₹.1,18,80,000/- and not disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 14.12.2017 by accepting the income returned after examining the purchase deed and source of purchase of immovable property.

So far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, the ld. PCIT has issued notice under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not offered the revised stamp duty value of the immovable property purchased as “income from other sources” as per section 56(2) of the Act and in view of the above, the total income escaped in the whole transaction works out to ₹.2,48,86,000/- and the 1/7th share of the assessee out of this is ₹.35,40,857/- Against the above show cause notice dated 05.03.2020, the assessee has neither appeared nor furnished any written submission and accordingly, while setting aside the assessment order, the ld. PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. Since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act applies with effect from the assessment year 2014-15 and the assessment year under consideration is also 2014-15, we are of the opinion that the ld. PCIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is allowed and the appeal for the assessment year 2014- 15 is dismissed.