MADHUMALTI SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had a complete non-application of mind in recording the reasons for reassessment, as the fundamental premise of a property sale was incorrect. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on information suggesting the assessee had sold a property for a lower value than the stamp duty value. The assessee objected, stating the property was purchased, not sold. The Assessing Officer proceeded with additions on merit.
What were the issues?
Whether the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were based on cogent material and a proper application of mind.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 25/04/2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/04/2017 ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A)-I, NOIDA, vide order dated 31.08.2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the amended grounds of appeal as under: “1.Ground of Appeal No.-1: The A.C. has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of faulty and nonexistent reasons and grounds . The A.O. has opened the' case u/s 147 on the basis of reasons which never existed and made additions even after the objection of the assessee that the reasons for opening of the case do not exist. Hence the A.O. ceased power to assess the income u/ s 147 and his order needs to be quashed. 2.Ground of Appeal No.-2: Addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan from the brother of the assessee Shri Ashish Bhardwaj That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan. 3.Ground of Appeal No.-3: Addition of Rs. 98,500/- on account of unexplained expenditure: cash spent by the assessee to buy stamp papers That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 98,500/- on account of unexplained expenditure.
Ground of Appeal No.-4: Addition of Rs. 1,15,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan from sister in law of the assessee Smt Gitanjali Bhardwaj That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 1,15,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan.”
2. Learned counsel for the assessee argued the legal ground at the first instance and pointed out the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer at paper book 21 which is reproduced hereinbelow: Reasons for proceedings u/s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 Dated : 30.03/2014 As per information under section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 received from the office the Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida it has been found that the assessee has sold property Rs.11,27,5001- on 02/08/2006 where as the sale consideration as per sec 50C of the property at Rs.16,04,000/-. In compliance to notice u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act 1961 dated 22/02/2013, assessee could not furnish any reply which proves that the assessee not adopted the sale value the property as per section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus in view of the above, the assessee concealed the income of Rs. 4,76,500/- (16,04,000- 11,27,500/-). In absence of PA information regarding filling of the return for the A.Y. 2007-08 and the fact that the assessee declared capital gain in his return cannot be ascertained. Therefore, in view of the above, I have reason to believe that capital gain income of 4,76,500/- has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2007-08. To assess the same, proceedings u/s.147 of the I.T. Act 1961 are being initiated.”
3. The assessee has raised the objection to the reasons so recorded which are available at page 23 of the paper book. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and rejected the submission of the assessee, therefore, the learned CIT(A) rejected the legal ground of the assessee.
4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. It is not disputed that as per reasons recorded the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee has sold the property and accordingly the assessee has not adopted the sale value of the property u/s.50C of the Act which is complete non application of mind since the assessee submitted the reply at page 2 dated 8.03.2013 that property was purchased and not sold. Also as per the objection to the reasons placed at page 23 of the paper book, the assessee has raised the objection on the same point. This is a complete non application of mind by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons which in fact has been accepted by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. In such circumstances and facts of the case, the reasons so recorded are without any cogent material and there cannot be any reason to believe in the absence of material on record. The Assessing Officer does not acquire any jurisdiction to assess/re-assess u/s.147 of the Act and assessee/re-assess so made u/s.147 of the Act is directed to be quashed. Thus, the legal ground of the assessee is allowed.
5. Since the assessee succeeds on legal ground, therefore, the grounds on merit become academic in nature and do not require any adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day 28th April, 2017
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026