SACHIN PRAKASH VALSE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1448/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements, particularly the first proviso to Section 147. The addition was also found to be erroneous on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 concerns an addition of Rs. 51 lakhs as long-term capital gains. The reopening was initiated beyond the statutory four-year period without proper justification, and the addition was based on an alleged agreement with a cash payment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was validly done beyond the statutory period and without fulfilling the conditions. Whether the addition of long-term capital gains was justified based on the facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.03.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1053783369(1), dated 19.06.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made the long term capital gains addition of Rs.51 lakhs in the course of assessment dated 27.12.2018 as upheld in NFAC’s lower appellate

2 ITA.No.1448/PUN./2023 discussion. Suffice to say, there is no denial of the clinching fact inter alia making it clear that this is assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee had filed his return on 23.03.2013 followed by sec.143(1) intimation dated 31.12.2013 and regular assessment framed on 11.12.2017.

Learned Assessing Officer thereafter issued sec.148 notice dated 31.03.2018 very well beyond the statutory period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year without even indicating that this taxpayer had not “fully” and “truly” disclosed his particulars in the former round. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the impugned addition is based on an alleged Tharav Patra dated NIL with stamp paper purchased on 21.12.2011 on the basis of which the learned lower authorities have added the cash payment to the seller Shri Vithal Nagnath Gurme. It is further clear in this factual backdrop that when the assessee is alleged to have made payments of Rs.51 lakhs; as an investor; the learned Assessing Officer went on to add long term capital gains rather than invoking sec.69 of the Act. Be that as it may, there is no denial from the Revenue side that Assessing Officer’s impugned reopening reasons had not complied with the corresponding statutory requirements u/sec.147 first proviso as well.

3 ITA.No.1448/PUN./2023

3.

Faced with this situation, I hereby conclude that the assessee’s instant appeal deserves to succeed both on the foregoing legal issue as well as on merits in very terms.

Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →