9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed by ITO-1(4), Indore. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual. As per Annual Information Report the assesse along with 21 other persons had sold immovable property at Talawali Chanda, Indore during F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. The stated consideration as per the deed was Rs. 30,00,000/- and it was registered on 21.10.2009 and on this date market value of the property assessed by the Sub-Registrar was Rs. 1,31,00,000/-. The assessee's proportionate share in the deemed consideration worked out to Rs. 5,96,315/-. PAN of the assessee was not quoted in the sale deed. Ld. AO after necessary approval issued notice u/s 148 of the Act followed by serving of notice u/s 142(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven when the same was issued on the wrong address and not on the proper address of the assessee as available with the Income Tax Department. Hence, assessment framed on the basis of such notice is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law the same now requires to be quashed. 3. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in Law the ld. CIT(A) erred in approving the proceeding initiate by the Assessing Officer by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act in absence of any tangible material in possession of the assessing officer having live link with the concealment of income but the same was issued merely on the basis difference in sale price and value as per stamp authority. 4. That on the fact and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the ground related to charging of interest u/s 234B of Rs. 93,588/- which is excessive and moreso interest under this section is chargeable as per sub-section (3) of section 234B of the Act. 4. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submission and compilation containing 149 pages and citing various decisions appearing in the paper book. 5. Per contra ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the orders of both lower authorities. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. On perusal of the grounds, we find that effectively two issues are raised, firstly challenging the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment proceedings carried thereafter and seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee challenging the validity of assessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 8. As far as merits of the case are concerned on perusal of the records and the copy of sale deed available in the paper book, we find that the sale deed was presented before Sub-Registrar on 27.11.2007 and the Stamp of the Sub-Registrar office exhibit the presentation of the sale deed on 27.11.2007. Assessee issued Power of Attorney in favour of Raj Kumar Tiwari on 19.02.2007 and received her sale consideration and also disclosed the income for capital gain in her return of income for A.Y. 2007-08. It is also not in dispute that sale consideration mentioned in this sale deed was received by the sellers and vacant possession was handed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
