Amilcar Jose Carlos Alvares Vs ITO (ITAT Panaji)
Section 148 Notice Valid on ₹69.60 Lakh Property-Sale Information; Capital Gain Remanded to Verify Actual Ownership
The Department received information indicating that the assessee had sold immovable property for ₹69,60,000. Since no response was filed to the notice under section 148A(b), reassessment proceedings were initiated and long-term capital gain of ₹34,80,000 was added to the assessee’s income.
The assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that the notice was issued beyond three years and the alleged escaped income was below the prescribed threshold. He also contended that he did not own the property; according to him, the actual co-owners were his wife and her sister.
The ITAT rejected the jurisdictional challenge. It observed that, at the stage of reopening, the AO possessed information indicating a property sale of ₹69.60 lakh, which exceeded ₹50 lakh. Since the assessee had not responded to the section 148A(b) notice, the AO had no information concerning the property’s actual ownership. The section 148 notice was therefore held to be valid based on the material then available.
However, on merits, the Tribunal held that the ownership of the property and the declaration of capital gains by the correct owner or co-owners required factual verification.
Accordingly, the long-term capital-gain issue was restored to the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication after examining the title documents and tax treatment in the hands of the alleged co-owners. The AO was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PANAJI
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 20.02.2026 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 19.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. Assessee has raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal, however, the grievance of the assessee revolves around the addition for long term capital gain at Rs.34,80,000/- and the legal issue challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act.
3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section148A(b) of the Act. He further submitted that the reopening has been carried out based on the information that the assessee has sold immovable property at Rs.69,60,000/-, however, the assessee does not own the property. The assessee’s wife along with the sister are the co-owners in the property and therefore no addition is called for in the hands of assessee.
4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. So far as the legal issue raised by the assessee in Ground Nos. 1 to 4 challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings beyond three years even though income escaped assessment is less than Rs.30.00 lakh, we on perusal of the record observe that ld. Assessing Officer had information that assessee has sold immovable property at Rs.69,60,000/- which is obviously more than Rs.50.00 lakh. Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act and assessee has not replied. However, ld. Assessing Officer had no information about the ownership of the immovable property and therefore proceeded to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act. We therefore fail to find any merit in the legal grounds raised by the assessee and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed as valid notice u/s.148 has been issued by the Assessing Officer under the given facts and circumstances of the case.
5. So far as merits of the case, the contention of the assessee is that property in question is not owned by the assessee and the information about ownership of the property and the declaration of long term capital gain in the hands of correct owner/co-owners need to be examined. We therefore deem it appropriate to remit the issues raised in the instant appeal on merits to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and after examination of the requisite details pertaining to the ownership shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 18th day of August, 2026.
