9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore interest awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not exhigible to tax. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in following the decisions of the Non-Jurisdictional High Courts when, the same issue has been decided in the Assessee's favour by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Pune Bench. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred also in considering the SLP 'dismissed in limine' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Law of Land and decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) still prevails. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground: 1) The notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since the approval obtained by the learned A.O. is not as per the conditions laid down in section 151 and accordingly, the notice issued u/s 148 and the reasst. order passed u/s 147 be declared null and void. The appellant submits that the additional ground raised is legal in nature and as all the facts are on record, the assessee requests for admission of the above ground. 4. The Learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire amount of interest received by the assessee is found to be taxable in assessee's hands, as income from other sources. Secondly, it is pointed out assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 10(37) as the said deduction applies only to capital gains from compensation or enhanced compensation from land acquisition, but not on interest on such compensation. In the present instance, the amount represents interest on enhanced compensation, but the compensation or enhanced compensation itself. Thirdly, reference is made to Section 57 (iv) rws 56(2)(viii). Section 57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned in Sec 56(2)(viii). Interest on compensation or enhanced compensation is the amount mentioned in Section 56(2)(viii). Therefore, in accordance with the above, 50% of Rs. 2,60,05,088 amounting to Rs. 1,30,02,544/- is treated as deduction and the balance amount of Rs. 1,30,02,544/- is hereby to be treated as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income." 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." 12. Referring to pages 2 to 8 of the paper book, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 30.03.2022. Referring to page 9 of the order, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 01.06.2022 in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agrawal in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022. Referring to the proceedings u/s 148A(d) of the Act in consequence of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 04.05.2022, he drew the attention of the Bench to the same, copy of which is placed at pages 13 to 17 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing information is available in the annual information report Information Code Information Description Value TDS-194A TDS Return - Other Interest (Section 194A) Rs. 2,60,05,088/- Ongoing through office records, it has been found that the assessee has NOT filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 and therefore, the income earned out of the transaction as tabulated above had not been disclosed by the assessee pertaining to above mentioned transaction. In view of the above facts, it can be established that the assessee during the relevant year had above said transaction, which had not been disclosed for taxation. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act. 1961 vide order dated 30/03/2022 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042024169(1) at an assessed income of Rs. 2,60,05,088/-. 02. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. Ashish Agarwal and others dated 04-05-2022. As per para 10 of the above decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to treat all the notices issued u/s 148 after 01-04-2021 (as per provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consideration of the provision of section 10(37) of the income Tax Act, 1961. There are 13 individuals involved, he should consider my share of 1/13th being Rs 20,00,391.00 and according assess my income tax liability thereon. The TDS deducted is under wrong section. I have already went for appeal. Your applicants pray for leave to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any of the above ground" Along with the above submission the assessee furnished copy of bank pass book. 06. Finding of the AO: - In this case the assessee the assessee during the relevant period has received interest of Rs. 2,60,05,088/-, since the assessee has not filed his return of income for the relevant period of A.Y. 2016-17 the income was not disclosed for taxation and thus the same has escaped assessment. 'During the assessment proceedings, the assessee just two days before the time barring date of finalising the assessment furnished partial submission. As per the submission the assessee furnished copy of Bank Pass book, Form 16A, copy of Award under section 11 of Land acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25.08.1989. As per the submission the assessee claimed that there are 13 parties involved in the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and 7 of the order dated 13.04.2022 passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read as under: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR. To HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN 39 SHIVAJI PARK, E WARD NEAR CBS KOLHAPUR 416003, Maharashtra India PAN: AAHPH2287D AY 2018-19 Dated 13/04/2022 DIN & Notice No: TBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042737900(1) Name of the assessee HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN Address of the assessee 39 SHIVAJI PARK, E WARD NEAR CBS KOLHAPUR 416003, Maharashtra India Resident Not Ordinarily Resident Non-Resident Date of order 13/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCIT, Pune-1 Reference No. 100000029101926 Date Order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act.1961 1. Brief Details of the Assessee: The assessee Harishkumar Dungarmal Jain has filed return of income for the A Y 2018-19 in ITR-3 on 26/09/2018 declaring total income at Rs.30,63,633/-. The assessee is a beneficiary of LTC gain/loss or STC Gain/loss and has received Rs.23,39,899/- during the A.Y 2018-19. 2. Brief details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant assessment year. 15. We find an identical issue had come up before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Davos International Fund vs. ACIT (supra). We find the Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has observed as under: "7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case the 148A notice for AY 2017-18 was issued on 12.03.2022 and the order disposing the objections of the assessee was passed on 04.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining the prior approval of CIT (IT), Mumbai-2. The case of the revenue is that the notice dated 04.04.2022 is issued within three years since as per the 5th proviso to section 149, the AO has got additional 9 days for issue of notice under section 148 i.e. upto 09.04.2022. since the extended time of 9 days i.e. from 22.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 was given to the assessee. Therefore, it is argued by the revenue that notice iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashed and set aside." 8. Similar view is held by the jurisdictional High Court also in other cases as listed herein above. In the decision of the Vodafone Idea (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding that the proviso to section 151 extending the time limit as per the third, fourth or fifth proviso to section 149 is not applicable for AY 2018-19 as the same is inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. When we apply the said ratio to assessee's case, in our considered view, the claim of the revenue that the period of 3 years expires only on 09.04.2022 is not correct and that revenue cannot take shelter under the proviso to section 151 which came into effect only from 01.04.2023. Accordingly the notice issued on 04.04.2022 by the AO is issuedbeyond three years and therefore the approval should have been obtained by the authorities as specified under section 151(ii) Principle Chief Commission. As already stated the approval in assessee's case is obtained from CIT(IT) and therefore we are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining the approval from the correct authority as specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
