GEETA RANI,MEERUT V. ITO, WARD-1(2), MEERUT

ITA 530/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Geeta Rani, who appealed against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Meerut, which was based on a property gift received from Shri Davander Tyagi. The property was assessed as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was not received from a family member and exceeded a certain value. The primary legal contention was the validity of the approval for the assessment under Section 151, which was claimed to be granted in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemical Ltd., found the approval process to be flawed and thus quashed the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470366 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP), NTPC vs. 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV AHUJA
• Keywords: Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Gift; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148; 64

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.530/Del/2020 Smt. Geeta Rani (AY: 2010-11) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 530/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2010-11) Smt. Geeta Rani W/o Davander Tyagi H-234, Shastri Nagar, 01, Garden Houise, Garh Road, Opposite Hotel Harmony Inn, Besides Prakash Eye Hospital Meerut 250004 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) CIT(A) Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 250004 \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPR3071H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Rajeev Ahuja, Adv, Sh. Vishu Sharma, CA & Sh. Sabhya Kant, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY: (JM): The instant appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) Meerut, arising out of P a g e | 2 ITA No.530/Del/2020 Smt. Geeta Rani (AY: 2010-11) the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Meerut dated 29.11.2017 under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has filed an application for additional ground challenging the assessment under Section 148 of the Act without any valid satisfaction being recorded under Section 151 of the Act by the PCIT. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee before us received an immovable property located at 125/7 Shastri Nagar Meerut as gift/donation from one Shri Davander Tyagi which was registered on 21.12.2019 with the office of the sub-registrar-1, Meerut. As per information received from the DCIT-1 Meerut the said property was donated by Shri Davander Tyagi in the capacity of a constituted attorney engaged by one Smt. Rajni Sharma w/o Shri Yogendra Sharma of at east Mumbai. As the property has been gifted by way of the power of a constituted attorney on behalf of Smt. Rajni Sharma provision of Section 56(2)(vii) has been made applicable by the Revenue with a finding that such gift was not received from a family member and the stamp duty value of the property amounting to Rs.56,77,000/- is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources as reason was recorded by the ld. AO appearing at pages 11 & 12 to the paper book filed before us. P a g e | 3 ITA No.530/Del/2020 Smt. Geeta Rani (AY: 2010-11) 4. The assessee joins issue here to this effect that column 14 of profarma dated 24.03.2017 the PCIT only wrote ‘Yes, I am satisfied’. Thus, the same is mechanical in nature and the assessment on the basis of the said approval is void-ab-initio and therefore, liable to be set aside as also prayer made by the ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee before us. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemical Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the relevant observation is reproduced as under: “Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) arising out of order of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP): “Section 151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed Held, Yes (in faxour of the assesse).” 5. So far as the additional ground is concerned which has been taken before us for the first time he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) which is found to be rightly applicable and hence this additional ground is admitted. 6. So far as the merit of the additional ground is concerned the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime P a g e | 4 ITA No.530/Del/2020 Smt. Geeta Rani (AY: 2010-11) Chemical Ltd.(supra), it is found that assessment based on approval which is admittedly mechanical in nature and therefore, liable to be quashed as argued by the Ld. AR is found to be acceptable. Relevant to mention that the ld. DR failed to controvert such submissions made by the Ld. AR. 7. Having regard to the statement made by the Ld. PCIT to this effect ‘Yes I am satisfied’ which does not reflect any application of mind by the said officer while granting approval, respectfully relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the identical issue in the matter of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemical Ltd.(supra) we find the order of assessment is bad in law, void-ab-initio as the same is an outcome of an invalid approval and therefore, quashed. The appeal preferred by the assessee is, thus, allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2025 Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) Sd/- (Madhumita Roy ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 28.02.2025 PS: Rohit P a g e | 5 ITA No.530/Del/2020 Smt. Geeta Rani (AY: 2010-11) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "