Raju Jamnadas Babani Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 arising from assessment orders passed under Sections 143(3) read with Sections 144 and 144B, and Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. Since both appeals involved a common issue, they were disposed of by a consolidated order.
For AY 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment after finding that the assessee had sold an immovable property for ₹3.75 crore and equity shares but had not filed a return of income. A notice under Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d) was issued, followed by a notice under Section 148. The assessee filed a return but did not disclose capital gains arising from the sale of the property and carried forward the TDS credit to AY 2017-18.
During assessment, the AO noted that the assessee had sold a flat in Bandra, Mumbai, for ₹3.75 crore through a registered agreement dated 28.03.2016. The assessee contended that only ₹15 lakh had been received during the relevant year and that the balance consideration of ₹3,56,25,000 was received in the succeeding year and disclosed in AY 2017-18. The assessee also stated that the capital gain from sale of shares was exempt under Section 10(38). The AO rejected the explanation, holding that the registered sale agreement dated 28.03.2016 completed the transfer during AY 2016-17.
