Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased a property for Rs. 79,00,000 in September 2015 and sold it on September 7, 2015, for Rs. 75,00,000, resulting in a capital loss. The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17, believing they had no taxable income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without following mandatory procedures, specifically the requirement for prior approval from the specified authority for enquiry and the lack of involvement of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as per the faceless reassessment scheme. The issuance of the show-cause notice by an authority other than NFAC after March 29, 2022, was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148A were validly conducted, particularly concerning procedural compliances like prior approval for enquiry and issuance by the appropriate authority (NFAC).
Sections Cited
Section 148A, Section 147, Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
आदेश / O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-2017.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee had purchased a property for Rs.79,00,000 in September 2015 and had sold the same on 7th September 2015 on consideration Rs.75,00,000/-. The assessee had not filed its return for the impugned assessment year as the assessee did not have taxable income. The AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had sold the immovable property for Rs.75,00,000/- as return had not been filed. The reasons recorded is as follows:-
It was the submission that the assessee had responded the same on 17/03/2023 wherein all the details were mentioned which reads as follows:-
It was the submission that the AO did not accept the response of the assessee and had reopened the assessment and completed the assessment. It was submission that in the assessment no addition has been made on account of the reasons recorded for the purpose of the reopening. It was submission that the addition has been made in respect of the source for the purchase of property. It was submission that the in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd., reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Anand Cine Services (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 8 NYPCTR 284 (Mad), wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has categorically held that section 147 of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to travel beyond the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings provided such reassessment is also carried out on the grounds or reasons on which reassessment was initiated. On the other hand, if the ground on