ITO Vs Maddila Ramakrishna (ITAT Bangalore)
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT Bangalore against the order dated 3 April 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015–16. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s appeal and quashed the reassessment proceedings. The Revenue challenged that decision, contending that the reassessment notice was within the limitation period due to the extension granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), that the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal did not invalidate the notice, and that the Assessing Officer had complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 148A pursuant to Union of India v. Ashish Agrawal.
The assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2015–16 on 28 September 2015 declaring total income of ₹66,49,470. Information available with the department indicated that the assessee had sold immovable properties for ₹1,88,55,000, whereas the stamp duty value of those properties was ₹16,08,30,001, resulting in a substantial difference. Based on this information, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 after obtaining approval from the competent authority.
In response, the assessee explained that he had entered into an MOU dated 5 August 2004 with Hotel Rama Pvt. Ltd. regarding acquisition and development of land. Subsequently, an unregistered sale agreement dated 2 December 2004 was executed between the parties. Under the arrangement, advances totaling ₹61,00,000 were received through cheques. The agreement fixed the sale price at ₹9,00,000 per acre, while the guideline value at that time was ₹1,87,500 per acre. Although the eventual sale deeds were executed on 21 April 2014, the agreed consideration remained ₹1,88,55,000, whereas the stamp duty value at the time of registration had risen to ₹16,08,30,001.
