Messages

The retrospective amendment made JAO FAO issue of sec 151A and consequential notification  and recent amendment made in sec. 147A was not viewed properly by the stake holders. To start with the newly inserted section is reproduced hereunder..

"147A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order
or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed
thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the
Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean
and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other
than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit
referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.".

A hormonious reading of 151A and the above mentioned 147A, what we understand is....

Issuance notices u/s 148A and 148 are also in Faceless manner through automated allocation... Of course, for both these sections the officer need not be assessment Unit or NafAc... Ok JAO  ( or any other officer ) also but what about the restriction imposed in sec 151A....faceless manner and automated allocation.... This restriction enacted by sec 151A is nowhere removed by enacting 147A....

Then what newly inserted 147A really communicates... AO (other than NafAc or AU) is empowered to issue these Notices of 148A and 148 in a faceless manner through automated allocation...

The retrospective amendment made JAO FAO issue of sec 151A and consequential notification  and recent amendment made in sec. 147A was not viewed properly by the stake holders. To start with the newly inserted section is reproduced hereunder..

"147A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order
or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed
thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the
Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean
and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other
than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit
referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.".

A hormonious reading of 151A and the above mentioned 147A, what we understand is....

Issuance notices u/s 148A and 148 are also in Faceless manner through automated allocation... Of course, for both these sections the officer need not be assessment Unit or NafAc... Ok JAO  ( or any other officer ) also but what about the restriction imposed in sec 151A....faceless manner and automated allocation.... This restriction enacted by sec 151A is nowhere removed by enacting 147A....

Then what newly inserted 147A really communicates... AO (other than NafAc or AU) is empowered to issue these Notices of 148A and 148 in a faceless manner through automated allocation...



Let us all think whether the enactment served the intended purpose or not....

Though I have posted this query nearly one year back, it didnot attract any attention from the stake holders... Recently, I found a decision of Telangana high court  in the case of kankanala Ravindra reddy on the same issue.. The notices issued by JAOs without following the procedure of faceless manner are found to be knocked down by the honourable high court... Other than, Telangana high court any other high court has given decision on similar lines or different lines...

Though I have posted this query nearly one year back, it didnot attract any attention from the stake holders... Recently, I found a decision of Telangana high court decision in the case of kankanala Ravindra reddy on the same... The notices issued by JAOs without following faceless manner are found to be knocked down by the honourable high court... Other than, Telangana high court any high court has given decision on similar lines or different lines...

The above notification clearly says the notice u/s 148 should be issued in the faceless manner through automated allocation. But the notices were found to be issued by AOs without being followed the procedure of automated allocation. Under these circumstances whether the said notice issued by normal AOs without following the procedure of automatic allocation and without following faceless procedure are valid in law.

It is observed that incometax department is issuing notices u/s 148 without following the prescribed procedure u/s 149 especially for the period more than 3 years but less than 10 years  which reads as per enclosure.
which means the AO should have in his possession the books of accounts or documents or evidence but it is observed that basing on the information flagged by risk management strategy the department started issuing notices but they don't have books of accounts of documents or evidence in their possession.  Whether anybody challenged the notices on this ground.

It is observed that public are receiving large number of notices issued u/s 148A of the IT act asking clarifications on various financial transactions entered into by the assessees before the department issuing the reopening notices u/s 148. In this connection, it is observed it is observed that the new section 148A which has come into existence with effect from 01.04.2021 and this section was governed by sec.151A. Further, the new section ie section 151A  is not activated till a notification is issued on 29.03.2022. Since, sec 151A is not activated till 29.03.2022 automatically the new section 148A is also not activated till 151A was activated ie. till 29.03.3022. Since the new section u/s 148A is dormant till 29.03.2022, whether the department can issue notices under a dormant section which was not activated till a notification is issued on 29.03.2022. accordingly, the notices issued u/s 148A before 29.03.3022 are valid in the eyes of law.

secondly, on 29.03.2022, a notification is issued u/s 151A which is enclosed ...




The above notification clearly says the notice u/s 148 should be issued in the faceless manner through automated allocation. But the notices were found to be issued by AOs without being followed the procedure of automated allocation. Under these circumstances whether the said notice issued by normal AOs without following the procedure of automatic allocation and without following faceless procedure are valid in law.

Why the demand has come for the sake of discussion. Where is the difference between the taxpayer and the department.

Yes it is applicable. As the section 50C speaks of transfer. transfer from one person to another person. Here in the case cited, the transfer is from coperative society to its member. both are distinct and separate persons as per incometax Act. Therefore, sec 50C is applicable.

Please see kerala high court decision reported in 167 ITR 103 and Gujarat high court decision in 118 taxman 526.....

It is very difficult to come out of  the situation once the taxes are not paid as per the declaration made under ids ..... there is a possibility that the department may reopen the assessment and therefore will be subjected to further harassment.

first of all without consulting any professional, your wife has accepted the departments demand and consequently paid the part of the corresponding taxes also... in my opinion there is no way you can come out of the situation except filing a writ in court  or else the chief Commissioner of Income Tax concerned may be approached and situation may be appraised.... As per provisions, there is no possibility...... other than this there is no solution.....

[tax]

          Whether non payment of advance tax as per the order of Assessing Officer u/s 210(3) attracts penalty and prosecution.  Of late, people are receiving notices from IT department that they should show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched against them for non payment of advance tax during the current financial year when compared to last financial year.

          Before going into intricacies, whether the recovery provisions of incometax act 1961, ie.e sec. 222 to 229 are applicable to the advance tax.  Sec. 221 and 222 starts with the language " When an assessee is in default or deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax,.......

Whether "advance tax" defined in sec. 2(1) amounts to tax as envisaged in the above sentence. Let us examine.. Till 1989, advance tax is not separately defined in incometax act. Therefore, we can say tax includes advance tax also. But however, the position was  changed with effect from 01.04.1989 as advance tax is separately defined u/s 2(1) which was introduced vide finance Act 1987. "TAX" was defined in sec. 2(43). Though, tax was separately defined in sec. 2(43) what made the legislature to bring one more definition in the form of advance tax in sec. 2(1) was neither explained in circular 495 which is explanatory memorandum of finance act, 1987 nor in the finance act itself.  However, it was separately defined. Since Advance tax was separately defined,  we safely conclude that both are not one and the same and are different. Therefore, the recovery measures which are meant for 'TAX" collections are not attracted to "ADVANCE TAX'.

           For advance tax,  a different demand notice is prescribed as per IT Rules 1962. i.e. Form 28 which says non payment of advance tax will attract penal interest u/s 234B and 234C. Other than these interests nothing else is mentioned in form 28 whereas in form 7 which is meant for regular tax collections, interest u/s 220(2), penalty u/s 221(1) and recovery measures sec. 222 to 229 and 232 are all mentioned and it was clearly specified  that non payment of the demand specified in the notice will attract all these interest/penalties besides the demand mentioned therein. 

           On further verification, it is observed that form 28 as existed before 1989 { before the date of 01.04.1989 wherein advance tax was separately defined in sec. 2(1)}, it was clearly mentioned that non payment of advance tax will attract penalty u/s 221(1). However, recovery measures like sec. 222 to 229 and 232 were neither mentioned in the form 27 before 1989 nor amended form 27 which is applicable from 1989.   Whether the omission of penalty u/s 221(1) in form 28 is intentional nor a typo graphical (clerical) mistake. That too, form 28 is statutory form and cannot be changed as per whims and fancies. Therefore, It can safely be concluded that the legislature has intentionally omitted the penalty u/s 221(1) in form 28 as it has brought out statutory interests u/s 234B and 234C and also the definition of advance tax in sec. 2(1).

Thus, it is evident that Advance tax is tax only upto 1989 and thereafter it is separately defined in sec. 2(1) as such it is not tax for any purpose of income tax act, 1961. It can never be recovered by resorting to measures 222 to 229 and 232 nor any penaltyU/s 221(1)  is leviable for non payment of advance taxes as on date.

      since in prosecution provisions ie. 276C also  it is mentioned as tax  only but not advance tax as such non payment of advance tax will not attract prosecution ..

Any contrary view in this regard is whole heartedly welcome. 

What you are expecting. Where is the need of issuing 143(2).. See the section 143(2)..... it starts with the words....Where a return has been furnished u/s 139(1), or in response........which means notice u/s 143(2) is required only when a return is filed. in the given case, there is no return.. then where is the question of issuing 143(2),,,,Therefore, the idea of 143(2) is not good. If you have merit, fight it otherwise, ........

Please ask for the reason on the basis of which fresh notice u/s 148 was issued. ......whether four years are already lapsed or not. Change of opinion also to be verified. First of all, please file the return of income and seek the reasons.....

your question can be viewed two angles....
1.. Since funds are not from the sale proceeds of the flat sold by your wife, you have a apprehension that whether 54F would be allowed by AO or not.

suppose, your wife has taken a loan from you of Rs. 25 lakhs and pay Rs. 50 lakhs to the builder then whether AO can disallow it. the answer is a big no.  why because, the courts have held that the same money received out of sale consideration need not be invested in new house to get deduction u/s 54/54F.. What is relevant is whether the new house is in her name or not... So far, the new house is in her name, no problem, even if AO didnot allow it, I am sure, you will ultimately win the case ... please see the case laws in the case of PS pasricha ( reported in this website) and 206 taxman 150 and finally 382 ITR 56....

2. If the entire sale consideration is paid by your wife from the sale proceeds of the house , though the house is registered in the name of yourself as well as your wife .... then also your wife will get dedcution. this issue has also been set at rest by somany high courts in the decisions reported in 351 ITR 4, 342 ITR 38, 349 ITR 80,  327 ITR 278... There may be so many case laws....

In view of the above, you may purchse the new house in the name of your wife and proceed to claim the deduction.  But dont forget to deposit the proceeds in the joint account from which the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs has been paid  after the sale consideration is received.. Dont worry at all .... go ahead..

Yes, why not ....you can purchase the land and start constructing house. However, within 3 years entire amount is to be spent though the house could not be constructed.