GAURAV TIWARI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURUGRAM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 15.01.2025, for Assessment Year 2015-16.

Shri Ajay Goyal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment for AY 2015-16 was reopened for the reason:- (i) the assessee had purchased immovable property worth Rs.55,04,000/- during Financial Year 2014-15; (AY 2015-16) (ii) the assessee had credit card bills amounting to Rs.2,81,853/- during Financial Year 2014-15; and (iii) the assessee has income from salary Rs.19,42,045/- from M/s. Optum Global Solutions P. Ltd. during FY 2014-15. And no return of income was filed by the assessee for the AY 2015-16 relevant to FY 2014-15.

Notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 was issued to the assessee on 19.03.2022. The assessee’s reply to the said notice is at page 3 of the paper book. The said reply of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 04.04.2022 passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. 3.1. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee had purchased immovable property in the joint name with his wife Smt. Shivani Tiwari. The purchase consideration was funded by the assessee from his past savings, loan from his mother and loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from HDFC Bank Ltd. Referring to the loan sanction letter at page 10 of the paper book, he pointed that the loan was sanctioned in the joint names of Gaurav Tiwari and Shivani Tiwari. The AO made entire addition of Rs.5,54,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act in the name of the assessee alone, without considering the fact that the property was in the joint name. He submitted that the assessment order has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and without examining the documents on record. 3.2. He further pointed that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued after three years from the end of relevant assessment year. Referring to provisions of section 149(1) of the Act, he submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Act could have been (AY 2015-16) issued beyond three years only were the escaped assessment amount is Rs.50,00,000/- or more.

Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. In the present case, the assessment has been made u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act beyond the period of three years from the end of assessment year. The AO made addition of Rs.22,72,444/-. Though, multiple grounds have been raised in the present appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has restricted his submissions on two counts: (i) Assessment u/s.147 of the Act has been made beyond the period of three years and the amount which is stated to have escaped assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-; & (ii) The variation in the value of property jointly purchased by the assessee is Rs.5,54,000/-. The entire amount has been added in the hands of the assessee, though the property was purchased in the joint names.

Section 149 of the Act specifies the time limit for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act can be issued after three years but not more than ten years from the end of relevant assessment year, where escaped assessment amount is likely to be Rs.50,00,000/- or more. In the instant case, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2022 and the addition made by the AO in assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act is merely Rs.22,72,444/-. The escaped assessment amount is for less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Therefore, in light of (AY 2015-16) provision of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the assessment is without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be quashed. I hold accordingly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 27th day of October, 2025.