BALAJI MADHAVRAO MALWADE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHARASHTRA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.1249/PUN/2023 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Balaji Madhavrao Malwade, Income Tax Officer, Tarang, 2nd Floor, Ward-4, Panvel Plot No.33, Sector 10, Khanda Colony, vs. New Panvel (West) – 410206 Maharashtra PAN : ACUPM4749A (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. Neha Deshpande
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.
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”.
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 ITA
No.49/Jab/2018’s “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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
3 ITA.No.1249/PUN/2023 Balaji Madhavrao Malwade
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 2024.
Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated : 26th March, 2024 Satish
Copy to :
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
/ /By Order // //True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
