9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 21st May, 2022, order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 29th July, 2022 and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act are on distinct and separate grounds. In support of his contention, he refers to and relies upon the notice dated 21st May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as the order dated 29th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, wherein it has been stated as under: A) Notice dated 21st May, 2022 "As per information received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has sold a property for the consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, however, circle rate cost of the property was Rs. 22,50,000/-. It is found that assessee has filed her ITR for the A.Y 2017-18 declaring income of Rs. 3,47,281/- whereas as per ITR the assessee has not declared the capital gain income on sale of above property. As per the stamp duty authority the value of the property sold by the assessee was of Rs. 22,50,000/- whereas the purchaser paid as per sale deed a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-......." 3. He further states that the impugned proceedings for the Assessment Year 2017-18 are barred by limitation in terms of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act as the income alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs. 11,25,000/- i.e. less th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act realised that he had committed a mistake while issuing the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, yet he proceeded with the same and even went to the extent of wrongly stating in the Section 148A(d) order that he had issued the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act with regard to the Rohini property instead of Kingsway Camp property. 7. A perusal of the file also reveals that the information with the Assessing Officer received from the ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi was with regard to violation of Section 269SS of the Act and not with regard to non-declaration of long term capital gain, for which the notice had been issued. Consequently, the impugned show cause notice is contrary to the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
