ITO v. Sanath Kumar Murali (2025) 304 Taxman 55 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Sanath Kumar Murali v. ITO (2023) 294 Taxman 80/ 455 ITR 370 (Karn(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Capital gains- Assessing quantum of escaped income in matters like this, amount mentioned in registered conveyance couldnot be straight away taken as income escaping assessment without deducting cost of acquisition therefrom. Order of single judge was affirmed. [S. 45, 48, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(b), Art. 226]

 

Assessing Officer issued reopening notice dated 21-3-2023 against on ground that on sale of property LTCG arose and Rs 55 lakhs had escaped assessment.  Assessee submitted that capital gain was Rs. 33.85 lakhs and as income escaping assessment did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, in terms of section 149(1)(b), notice under section 148 could not be issued. Single Judge, High Court held  that entirety of sale consideration should not be taken into account and words found in section 149 which was ‘income chargeable to tax’ must be read in terms of ‘income’ as arising out of ‘capital gains’ as provided under section 48. Single judge  set aside  reopening notice.  While assessing quantum of escaped income in matters like this, amount mentioned in registered conveyance couldnot be straight away taken as income escaping assessment without deducting cost of acquisition therefrom. Order of single judge was affirmed. (AY. 2016-17)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*