Arihant Engineers Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act in contravention of the provisions of section 151, as the sanction of the concerned Specified Authority was not obtained, is void abinitio and bad in law.
Facts- Since the assessee was a non-filer of the return for the year under consideration and in the assessee’s PAN, certain high-value transactions were captured by the system, proceedings u/s. 148A of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to show cause as to why notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued for the year under consideration.
AO held that the purchase cost as per the copy of the order of MIDC dated 13/03/2008 vide which the plot of land was allotted to the assessee is seen at Rs. 19,84,500 whereas the purchase cost adopted by the assessee in the statement of computation is at Rs. 21,19,405. Thus, it was held that the assessee was not able to reconcile the purchase cost of the property. Since the assessee could not furnish the copy of the sale agreement to substantiate that the property under consideration is the same property, which was allotted to it by MHADA and the assessee also did not furnish any proof in respect of the claim of brokerage expenses of Rs. 65,000, AO held that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 65 lakh has escaped assessment and this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the assessment year 201819. The assessment order was passed u/s. 147 r/w section 144B of the Act computing long-term capital gains at Rs. 22,92,130 and adding the same to the total income of the assessee.
