Akshay Deepak Talim Vs ITO (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee, an NRI residing in France since 2007, challenged the reassessment order for assessment year 2017–18 passed under sections 143(3) read with 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. The primary contention was that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the alleged income escaping assessment was below ₹50 lakh, thereby not satisfying the extended limitation under section 149(1)(b).
The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from the Sub-Registrar regarding purchase of immovable property for ₹1,09,09,151. In response to notices under section 148A(b), the assessee explained that the property was funded through a housing loan of ₹1.08 crore from PNB Housing Finance Ltd and loans aggregating ₹17,35,000 from parents, in-laws, and relatives. The assessee furnished documentary evidence including residence permit, passport, purchase deed, loan sanction letter, disbursement advice, receipts, and copies of cheques issued by PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
However, in the order under section 148A(d), the Assessing Officer (AO) held that income of ₹1,09,09,151 had escaped assessment, observing that the assessee failed to explain the source of funds adequately. The AO invoked section 149(1)(b), stating that the escaped income exceeded ₹50 lakh and was represented in the form of an asset.
