Sanath Kumar Murali v. ITO (2023) 455 ITR 370 / 294 Taxman 80 / 333 CTR 189 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice after three years – Limitation-Capital gains-Notice issued without considering the reply-Income escaping did not exceed 50 lakhs-Income chargeable to tax-notice barred by limitation. [S. 45, 48, 148A(b) 148(d), 149(1)(b) Art. 226]

Reopening notice dated 21-3-2023 under section 148A(b) was issued  on ground that assessee had purchased a property and sold same after holding it for three years, therefore, long-term capital gain arose on same for Rs. 55.77 lakhs had escaped assessment.  The  assessee contended that capital gain was Rs. 33.85 lakhs after deducting indexed cost of acquisition and as income escaping assessment did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, in terms of section 149(1)(b), notice dated 21-3-2023 under section 148 for assessment year 2016-17 would not fall within extended time provided under section 149(1)(b) of the Act.  The  Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) and further issued a notice under section 148. On writ allowing the petition the court held that   a plain reading of section 48 provide that entirety of sale consideration would not constitute income.  The Revenue authorities   had not applied its mind to said reply filed by assessee nor noticed  legal position. Accordingly  the  order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 were  set aside.  Abdul  Majeed v. ITO (2022) 447 ITR 698 (Raj)(HC), distinguished.   (AY. 2016-17)