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’).
