SUBAITHA KHANI SAGUL HAMEETHU,MANAMELKUDI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PUDUKOTTAI
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 case was reopened beyond 3 years and the quantum of income escaped was less than Rs.50 Lacs, which contravened the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. This position was not controverted by the revenue.
What were the facts?
The appeal by the legal heir of the deceased assessee for AY 2016-17 arose from an order of the CIT(A) confirming an assessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The AO had made an addition of Rs.12.38 Lacs on account of the stamp duty value of a purchased property being higher than the registered value.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment beyond 3 years with less than Rs.50 Lacs escaped income is valid under Section 149(1)(b)?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 149(1)(b),Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
(िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Subaitha Khani Sagul Hameethu ITO बनाम/ L/H of late A.Sagul Hameethu Ward-1, #681, Kottaipattinam, Pudukottai. Vs. Manamelkudi-614 619. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. BJQPH-6104-Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)- Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri S. Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by legal heir of deceased assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 31.07.2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 26.05.2023. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.12.38 Lacs u/s. 56(2(vii) on the ground that the stamp duty value of the purchased property was more than the registered value.
The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal ground and submitted that the assessment is nullity since the case has been reopened beyond 3 years and quantum of income escaped is less than Rs.50 Lacs. In such a case, the case could not be reopened in terms of Sec.149 (1)(b) which provide that no notice u/s 148 would be issued for relevant AY if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant AY unless the assessing officer has in his possession books of accounts / documents / evidence etc. which reveal that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.50 Lacs or more. The aforesaid position could not be controverted by revenue.
From assessment order, it emerges that case of the assessee for AY 2016-17 was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 18.07.2022. The case was reopened on the ground that the stamp duty value of the purchased property was more than the registered value by Rs.12.38 Lacs. The same was accordingly added to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for want of any representation from the assessee.
It is quite clear that the case has been reopened beyond 3 years and the quantum of escapement of income is less than the prescribed threshold limit of Rs.50 Lacs. The same clearly contravene the statutory provisions of Sec. 149(1)(b). Our view is duly supported by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Smt. Nelamma (ITA No.1721/Bang/2024 dated 12.12.2024) as referred to by Ld. AR.
Accordingly, the impugned assessment stand quashed. We order so. Delving into other grounds has been rendered academic exercise. 5. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 17th December, 2024.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026