SAKSHI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC,
Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 03/02/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') arising out of A.Y. 2011-12
framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 06/12/2018 by the ACIT, Ward-6(1), Jaipur.
2. The assessee has made three fold arguments in the grounds of appeal; firstly, challenging the assessment of juri iction u/s.
148 of the Act and that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law; secondly, Ld.CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order in spite of having all the documents filed before him and the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the issues on merits; and, thirdly, against the addition of Rs. 4,34,406/- which has been wrongly calculated and that the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition and 2
ITA.No.682/JPR/2025
(Sakshi Sharma) other expenses incurred for acquiring the property has not been allowed and that addition has been made in the hands of the co-owner.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee referring to the legal issue, challenging the juri iction assumed u/s. 148 of the Act stated that Ld.AO has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on observing that the assessee has not filed the return of income and has not disclosed transaction of sale of immovable property. But this observation of Ld.AO is totally incorrect because the assessee has filed his return of income and also disclosed the transaction.
Therefore, in absence of any proper reason to believe, notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings carried out are also illegal and bad in law. In support of his contention, a reference was made to the written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A) along with placing reliance on various decisions referred therein furnished on 12/05/2023 and copy of the same is placed in paper book at page Nos. 82-92. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of Ld.CIT(A), but failed to controvert this contention that prior issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee had duly furnished the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act disclosing the alleged transaction.
5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. I observe that the assessee is an individual and regular return of income for A.Y.2011-12 has been furnished on 13/07/2011 declaring income of Rs. 1,45,360/-, which has been subsequently revised on the very same day declaring same total

3
ITA.No.682/JPR/2025
(Sakshi Sharma) income along with claiming current year loss of Rs. 21,217/- from sale of immovable property located at Plot No.2/469, Jawahar
Nagar, Jaipur. I further observe that the Ld.AO issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26/03/2018 and the reasons recorded for reopening are reproduced below:-
“1. Brief details of the assessee: The assessee is an Individual and during the year under consideration assessee sold an immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 1011000/-, which has been valued at Rs.1121562/- for purpose of stamp duty valuation by the Sub-