Indu Pankaj Dhandharia Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that approval for issuance of notice to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is required to be taken as per section 151. Taking wrong approval renders the reassessment proceedings invalid.
Facts- The assessee is an individual and the return thereof processed u/s. 143 (1) of the act and subsequently picked up for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny. Subsequently the assessee was issued a notice u/s. 148 of the income tax act on 30/6/2021 for the reason that as per the information available on insight portal that assessee has purchased a duplex property for Rs. 130,500,000/– from Agies Realtors and developers private limited [ Seller] on 23 June 2016. Assessee paid a further sum of Rs. 9,006,600 as Stamp duty and Rs. 30,000 as registration fees. However, the stamp duty value of the above property was Rs. 180,131,000/–. Therefore, the provisions of section 50C, 56 (2) (viia) (b)/43CA applies.
Conclusion- Held that notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued by JAO instead of FAo. This issues is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Honourable Bombay high court in case of Pravina Jagdish Patel[2024] 164 taxmann.com 659 (Bombay) and Hexaware [464 ITR 430] where it is held that for a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, the revenue would need to be compliant with section 151A, which has been interpreted and analyzed in detail by in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/464 ITR 430 (Bombay)’. Thus, on this issue reopening of assessment is quashed.
