TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Insight Portal and the income allegedly escaping assessment? - HELD THAT:- As show cause notice did not contain any reference to the difference between the guideline value and the sale consideration and call for an explanation. Instead, skeletal information regarding the purchase of the relevant immovable property was provided under the first two entries. On this basis, it cannot reasonably be expected of the noticee to provide an explanation with regard to the difference. While the impugned order refers to the lack of documentary evidence with regard to the gifts received from the petitioner's mother, although necessary information was provided by the petitioner, there is no discussion or evidence of consideration of the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. This writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on three grounds. The first ground is that the notice was issued under Section 148A(d) entirely on the basis of information obtained from the Insight Portal in accordance with the risk management strategy of the Income Tax Department. In support of the contention that information obtained on the Insight Portal cannot be the sole basis for issuance of notice under Section 148, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Anwar Mohammed Shaikh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others in W.P.No.2836 of 2022, order dated 13.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, [2023] 150 Taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta) , particularly paragraph 8 thereof, learned counsel submitted that Explanation 1 to Section 148 should not be lightly resorted to for purposes of re-opening an assessment. 5. In response to these submissions, Dr.Ramasamy, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, contended that the impugned order contains adequate reasons and does not warrant interference. From internal page 3 of the order, learned counsel pointed out that it is recorded therein that the market value of the property was Rs. 1,45,75,000/-, whereas the sale consideration was Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. According to learned senior standing counsel, the petitioner was put on notice on this issue in the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 should not be issued. The annexure contains a table with three entries. The first two entries relate to the purchase of an immovable property. The last entry relates to a TDS statement for a sum of Rs. 1,04,563/-. 8. In response to this show cause notice, the petitioner issued a reply on 03.03.2023. In the said reply, the petitioner admits that she purchased an old residential apartment on 05.10.2015 under registered Document No.2963 of 2015. She states that the cost of purchase was Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The source of funds have been explained in paragraph 3 of the reply. The petitioner has stated that she availed of a loan of Rs. 93,75,000/- from Sundaram BNP Paribas. The sanction letter relating thereto was enclosed. As regards the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the details/reply furnished by the assessee it is seen that the assessee has not disputed the evidence in the form of information provided by the INSIGHT PORTAL in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy. The document/evidence in possession reveal that the income chargeable to tax is represented in the form of expenditure spent towards investment in immovable property exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. 5. In view of the above, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2016-17. 6. This order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is passed with the prior approval of the specified authority (Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) u/s 151 of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000/- from Sundaram BNP Paribas, which formed the alleged principal source for the purchase, has not been dealt with in the impugned order. Unless an assessee's response to the show cause notice is duly considered before a decision is taken to issue notice under Section 148, the statutory mandate of a prior show cause notice would be reduced to an empty formality. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order calls for interference and the said order is hereby quashed. Consequently, the matter is remanded on terms set out below. 12. Because the impugned order raised an issue not previously raised in the show cause notice, it becomes necessary for the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice calling for an explanation wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
