BALAJI MADHAVRAO MALWADE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1249/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 March 2024AY 2014-15Bench: 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 incorrect as a comprehensive provision for assessment of such third-party material exists under section 153C of the Act. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2014-15, arising from proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The reopening was based on material seized during a search conducted in the case of M/s. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 when section 153C provides a specific mechanism for dealing with material found in search and seizure operations of third parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 13.03.2024Pronounced: 26.03.2024

Date of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055372984(1), dated 24.08.2023, involving 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 the first and foremost substantial issue which arises from the rival pleadings is that of the correctness of the impugned section 148/147 proceedings itself once it has 2 ITA.No.1249/PUN/2023 Balaji Madhavrao Malwade come on record that the same had been initiated against the assessee based on the specific incriminating material found/seized during the course of search on 13.07.2016 conducted in case of M/s. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited.

It is noticed in this factual backdrop that even the learned NFAC detailed discussion in para 6.1 onwards is fair enough in concluding that “specific evidences has been found in the Search and Seizure operations in the case of the company from which the assesee has bought the flat”.

3.

This being the clinching factual position that the impugned addition of unexplained investment is based on the specific seized material, it is hereby concluded that the learned lower authorities could not have initiated section 148/147 proceedings as there is already a comprehensive provision for assessment of such third parties u/s.153C of the Act. Faced with this situation, I see no reason to sustain the impugned reopening in light of “Third Member” decision in Kalyanika Infra Mega Ventures Private Ltd. Vs. DCIT dt. 09.10.2023. Learned Third Member has held section 153A to 153D applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2023 is a search initiated on or before 01.04.2021, form a complete code in itself. Faced with this situation, I quash the impugned reopening in very terms. The assessee succeeds in his first and foremost legal ground.

4.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

3 ITA.No.1249/PUN/2023 Balaji Madhavrao Malwade

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 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 →