LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR V. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1074/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Lal Chand Meena, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which confirmed the assessment made by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (AO) under sections 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the legality of the reopening of the assessment after a lapse of four years, which the assessee argued was based on a mere change of opinion and not on any failure to disclose material facts. Additionally, the assessee contested the disallowance of exemption under section 54F and the computation of capital gains based on the deemed value under section 50C. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural validity of the notice under section 148, leading to the quashing of the subsequent assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784406 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mohd. Shoib v. Dy. CIT, Lalit Kumar Kalwar Vs ITO, Gyanchand Batra vs. ITO, Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO, Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO, Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO & Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANOOP BHATIA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Capital asset; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Reopening of assessment; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Benefit of exemption; CHAPTER IV
• Section: 148; 143(3); 54; 54F; 139; 50C

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Lal Chand Meena S/o Dhanna Lal Meena D-40, Uniyara Garden, Opp. Uniyara Hospital MD Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUXPM0213G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM On being aggrieved by the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A)] dated 09/06/2025 the captioned assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed under section Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi [ for short AO ]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without clearly adjudicating the legal ground raised in the memorandum of appeal. Appellant prays such action being in absolute violation of principles of a quasi judicial authority, such order deserves to be quashed; 1.1 That on facts and in circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) - NFAC has grossly erred in not disposing-off specifically, the ground challenging validity of proceedings-initiated u/s 148 of the Act. Appellant prays that the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, initiated after lapse of four years from the relevant AY merely on the basis of change of opinion, being bad in law, the entire proceedings deserves to be quashed; 1.2 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law there being no default on the part of the appellant in disclosing truly and fully, all the material facts required for completing the assessment, the first proviso to section 147 fully applies to the appellant. Appellant prays that the notice issued u/s 148 being unlawful, the assessment framed deserves to be quashed 1.3 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. Ao has further grossly erred in not following the procedure embedded by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ms GKN Driveshifts while initiating proceedings us 147 of the Act, by not considering the objections filed by assessee against the reasons recorded. Appellant prays that assessment order passed without disposing the objections so raised being bad in law deserves to be quashed. 2. On basis of facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) - NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in disallowing the exemption us 54F amounting to Rs 34,25,398/-. Appellant prays that such exemption being duly allowable as claimed, the addition made deserves to be deleted. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming the act of computation of exemption eligible us 54F by considering the deemed value (stamp duty value) u/s 50C, rather than using the actual consideration received being invalid in law, the addition confirmed by restricting available exemption u/s 54F deserves to be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that original Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 was electronically furnished on 30.10.2015 vide acknowledgement number 872570930301015 declaring income of Rs. 3,44,950/-. The return was accordingly processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment for the above assessment year was completed on October, 2016 u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961. After that it was noted that the assessee has claimed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,56,841/- on sale consideration of Rs. 85,99,470/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 74,25,181/-. During the course of examination of assessment record, it is found that the assessee sold agricultural land of Rs. 50,00,000/- and work out long-term capital gain of Rs. 77,42,269/- taking into consideration the value u/s 50C (DLC) of Rs. 85,99,470/-, Further, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 74,25,181/-taking net consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Based on that set of fact the ld. AO noted that there was an excess claim allowed amounting to Rs. 34,25,398/- and thereby the it was considered to reopen the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was given a notice u/s. 148 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena on 30.03.2021 and thereby the assessment was completed on 25.03.2022 making addition of Rs. 34,25,398/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is reiterated here in below: 4.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, assessment order and submission of the appellant. The appellant had raised six grounds of appeal which are adjudicated as below. 4.2 The appellant has given his submission on 11.10.2023 and has reiterated the same in the subsequent dates on which the case was posted. 4.3 Ground No. 1 :- Vide this ground, the appellant has questioned the legal validity of the reopening of assessment on the ground that the appellant's case was reopened for the first time on 21.08.2015 and order u/s 147 r.w. s. 143(3) was passed in October, 2016. The appellant claims that the assessment was reopened subsequently after four years. The appellant has claimed that as per the provisions of first proviso to section 147, the case could have been further reopened after the expiry of four years only by reason of failure on the part of the appellant to truly and fully disclose the material facts. From the records it is seen that the appellant knowingly claimed deduction at a high value and failed to disclose that Long Term Capital Gains claimed by him was on lower amount rather than the amount as per the value taken for the purpose of computation of stamp duty. The said claim was legally questionable and hence, the appellant had failed to disclose the material facts truly and hence, it is held that reopening of assessment was legally valid. 4.4 Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4:- The appellant has claimed that the deeming of provision of section 50C has a limited scope only to the extent of and for the purpose of section 48. It is further claimed that the process of arriving at Capital Gains and Exemption u/s 54 are two distinct and separate processes. It is further argued that section 54F being an exemption provision, is a separate and Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena complete code in itself It does not warrant reading into any other deeming provision. The appellant has quoted the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal in its favour. 4.4.1 It is notable that while dealing with the identical issue, the Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal has taken a view that for the purposes of computation of exemption u/s 54F, the stamp duty value being the deemed full value of consideration as per section 50C is to be taken into account. The issue has been decided by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mohd. Shoib v. Dy. CIT, 1 ITR (Trib.) 452. While upholding the applicability of section 50C to the facts of the case, the Tribunal observed that section 45 provided a general rule that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset would be chargeable to income-tax under the head capital gains, except as provided in section 54, 54F, etc. According to the Tribunal while charging capital gains on profits and gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset, one had to see and take into account section 54F, and to the extent provided in section 54F and other similar sections, capital gains would not be chargeable. The moment there was a profit or gain on transfer of a capital asset, capital gains would be chargeable within the meaning of section 45, except and to the extent it was saved by section 54F and like sections. Analyzing the provisions of section 54F, the Tribunal noted that it was not the case that merely because provisions of section 54F were applicable to an assessee, that the entire capital gains would be saved and that no capital gains be chargeable. Saving u/s.54F depended on investment in new asset of net consideration received by the assessee on sale of old asset. The quantum of net consideration was the result of transfer of the old asset, charge of the capital gain was only on the old asset, and investment in new asset did not and could not nullify or take away the case from the charging section 45. According to the Tribunal, first it was section 45 which came into operation, then it was section 48 which provided computation of capital gains, and thereafter it was section 54F which saved the capital gains to the extent of investment in the new asset 4.4.2 Following the view held by the Hon'ble Tribunal, it may further be noted if the interpretation given by the appellant is accepted, then both section 45 nor section 50C would fail. Section 54F only provides the method of computation of capital gains and does not provide exemption from the charging section 45. If an assessee did not invest the full consideration into a new asset, then the capital gains are to be computed, in the manner laid down u/s 48 by applying the provisions of section 50C, and the exemption from capital gains was available only to the extent of investment made by the assessee in the new asset. Where only a part investment is made in the new asset, then capital gains would be charged with respect to the sale consideration taken for the propose of section Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena 45, not invested Provisions of section 54, 54F, etc. follow the charging section 45, and that the charging section 45 does not follow the exemption provisions. Merely because the assessee did not invest the difference between the notional sale consideration u/s 50C and sale consideration shown by the assessee, the charging of capital gains on the basis of notional sale consideration as per section 50C could not be waived There are many provisions in the Income Tax Act, where a notional income is taxed without giving any occasion to the assessee to make investment out of such notional income and claim deductions under Chapter VIA, etc. 4.4.3 The purpose of introduction of section 50C-by the Finance Act of 2002, was to curb the large-scale undervaluation rampant in the real estate transactions and bring the resultant unaccounted money into the tax net. It ensures that property transactions are taxed fairly by comparing the sale price of the property with its Stamp Duty Value. This Section was introduced to prevent the under-reporting in property sale. Many people would declare a lower price for their property than its market value to pay less tax. Section 50C closes this loophole by mandating that the Stamp Duty Value, which reflects the property's market value, be used for tax calculations. If the stand taken by the appellant is allowed, then it would lead to a dichotomous situation where the very purpose of bringing in section 50C will get defeated. It will make the charging section otiose and allow people to rampantly under report the sales and wriggle out of the provisions of section 50F, by claiming exemptions on the pre-designed, orchestrated value of the property by under reporting it and thereby avoiding to pay the capital gains ansing therefrom. If the argument advanced by the appellant is allowed, then there will be no point of computing a higher capital gains invoking provisions of section 50C and thereafter negating it and letting it to go untaxed, by allowing the assessee to claim exemption u/s 54F based on pre-designed artificial lower value of sale reported by them. In view of the above discussion, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.5 Ground No. 5:- This ground of appeal being consequential in nature does not require separate adjudication. 4.6 Ground No. 6:- This ground of appeal is general in nature, therefore, does not require any specific adjudication. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding so recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee appellant has filed the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the submission made before the ld. CIT(A) and the same is reproduced herein below:- In the Captioned case, assessment proceedings are fixed for hearing before your Honour. Under instructions from the assessee and in progression to the grounds of appeal already taken, following facts / submissions are made for your kind and sympathetic consideration. The assessee is an individual and originally had not filed his return u/s 139 of the Act. A notice u/s 148 of the Act, for the first time was issued on 21.08.2015 by recording reasons that there was information that the assessee had sold a property for Rs. 50,00,000/-, the stamp value of which was Rs. 85,99,470/-, and since return was not filed by the assessee, the taxability of capital gain could not be ascertained. The assessee then duly filed his ITR u/s 147 of the Act on 30/10/2015 declaring a capital gain of Rs. 3,17,448/- after claiming the cost of acquisition and exemption u/s 54F from the deemed value determined u/s 50C of the Act and consequently an assessment order was passed in October 2016 u/s 147/143(3) duly accepting the returned income. Again on 30.03.2021 a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, and once again the reasons recorded mentioned examination of long-term capital gains w.r.t sec 54F of the Act. The assessee though filed a return of income in response to this notice also (which was same as filed earlier in response to the erstwhile notice u/s 148, had strongly objected to this re-opening vide his letter dated 18.11.2021 (copy attached). A draft order was passed u/s 144B of the Act, on 20.03.2022 (copy attached) wherein nothing was stated about the objections raised by assessee, nor did it mention as to how this re-opening of a completed assessment after a lapse of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year was justified in the case of assessee. The draft order proposed denial of exemption claimed u/s 54F to the extent that investment made was proposed to be proportioned in the ratio of deemed value taken by virtue of sec 50C instead of the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. An objection to the draft order though was uploaded on 25.03.2023, was not considered by ld. AO for the reason that the last date to respond was 23.03.2023, and a final order was framed on 25.03.2023 itself confirming the addition Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena proposed in the draft order. The present appeal is challenging the validity of re- opening and the withdrawal of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Ground wise submissions are as under:- Ground of Appeal no. 1 In this ground the assessee has overwhelmingly challenged the notice u/s after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, where an order u/s 143(3) /147 was passed and the reason of reopening the completed assessment is the same as it was while issuing the notice u/s 148 for the first time. It is submitted that the original assessment in the case of assessee was passed u/s 1433(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and the reasons recorded during the erstwhile re-assessment was “examination of capital gains”(copy of assessment order dated Oct 2016 is enclosed) Complete documents relating to the property sold and investment made u/s 54F were duly filed, which were duly examined and after due verification the returned income was duly accepted. Further again, after a lapse of four years, notice u/s 148 has been reissued to re- examine the LTCG offered by the assessee. The Ld. AO grossly erred in reopening a completed assessment after a lapse of four years merely on the basis of change of opinion, which can't be basis of reopening assessment under section 147. Appellant hence prays that such reopening is illegal and void ab initio. Here, kind attention is invited to the provisions of first proviso to section 147 (as applicable for the AY 2013-14) which is reproduced below: \"Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year\" The assessee objected to such re-opening as it was hit by the first proviso to sec 147, whereby an assessment / re-assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the act is sought to be re-opened after lapse of four years, it has to be only for the reason that the income escaping assessment is due to the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena assessment. Whereas in the case of the assesee the original re-opening was done to examine the transaction of sale of property wherein after completely scrutinizing the documents and claims made, the LTCG as declared in the return was accepted by ld. AO. Also, all documents required to compute the said LTCG were truly and fully filed by the assessee during the original proceedings. Thus, re-opening the matter of the assessee after a lapse of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, merely on the basis of change of opinion, without there been any fault on the part of the assessee as to disclosure of all material required truly and fully, is absolutely illegal, bad-in-law, and thus the re-assessment proceedings absolutely deserve to be dropped. Also, the objection raised by the assessee, vide his reply submitted on the e-portal on 22.11.2021 has not been addressed to neither in the draft order nor in the final order at all, in so far as no speaking order has been passed disposing the objections raised by assessee. Such an approach is totally in violation of principles of natural justice as also in violation of the procedures set by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of GKN Drive shafts Ltd. And therefore, the proposed assessment is bad in law, void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. Without prejudice to above and in the alternate Ground of Appeal No. 2 In this ground the assessee has challenged the withdrawal of exemption by ld. AO on the ground that for the purpose of apportioning the amount re-invested and the capital gain eligible for exemption u/s 54F, what is to be considered is the deemed value u/s 50C and not the actual consideration. Now on merits the claim of the assessee u/s 54F computed proportionately based on actual sale consideration, and not the deemed value adopted u/s 50C is duly allowable as the amount that can be re-invested in purchase and/ or construction of property has to be and can only be the actual amount received and not any superficial figure. This ground of objection for the proposed addition was duly claimed in replies filed by the assessee yet no attention paid towards it in the draft order at all and no reasonable denial for such objection made in the draft order even. Hence again in this context the addition proposed is completely invalid in law. The assessee again reiterates that a deeming provision as created in sec 50C of the Act, is limited only to the extent and for the purpose of sec 48 and this deeming fiction cannot be extended or interpreted or read into other provisions of the Act that are separate and extinct, including sec 54F. The process of arriving at capital gains and exemptions allowable are two distinct and separate provisions that do not override each other. Sec 54F is an exemption provision and a complete code in itself, that does not warrant reading into of any other deeming provisions. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena Further computation of an eligible exemption must be worked out within the framework as far as possible, and the deeming fiction contained in any other provisions should not be brought into sec 54F. This contention is duly supported by various decisions as under: - Lalit Kumar Kalwar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) in ITA no. 894/JP/2017 dated 28.06.2023 (copy enclosed), wherein Gyanchand Batra vs. ITO (2010) 45 DTR (Jp)(Trib) 41 : (2010) 133 TTJ (Jp) 482, Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2012) 49 SOT 160 (Jp) and Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 122 DTR (Jp)(Trib) 404 : (2015) 172 TTJ (Jp) 412 have been followed; and Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO & Anr. (2013) 259 CTR (Kar) 579: (2013) 88 DTR (Kar) 59 : (2013) 356 ITR 90 (Kar) has been distinguished.” Based on above it is submitted that, the provisions of s.50C of the Act create a limited fiction to the effect that the full value of consideration shall be substituted with the provisions u/s 48 of the Act by the amount taken by the Sub-Registrar for registration purposes. Thus, this fiction u/s 50C of the Act is extended only the second aspect of computation of capital gains and the same does not extend to the charging section or the exceptions to the charging section. It is well settled that the fiction created by the Legislature must be strictly construed and applied only for the particular purpose for which the fiction has been created. It is impermissible to extend the operation of the fiction to situations or circumstances for which the said fiction has not been extended. This is because, the Legislature is fully aware of the meaning of the term 'full value of consideration', which is employed in several sections. The Legislature consciously intended to apply the fiction u/s 50C of the Act only to the expression used in s.48 of the Act and not in any other place. This is because, the Legislature would have used the expression, 'for the purpose of this chapter' instead of 'for the purpose of s.48' in the provisions of s.50C of the Act if sit intended to apply the fiction to the exemption provisions as well. In other words, the fiction contained in s.50C of the Act can be applied only for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s 48 of the Act and not beyond. Also that, the provisions of section 54F(1)(a) of the Act will become unworkable, if the construction placed thereon, would require the consideration as per section 50C of the Act to be taken to work out of the amount of exemption of the capital gains. That is the precise reason that the Legislature has consciously restricted the operation of the legal fiction u/s. 50C of the Act only for the purpose of section 48 of the Act and not for the entire Chapter IV-E relating to taxation of capital gains. No circular provides that the provisions of section 50C of the Act have to be reckoned and applied for the computation of the extent of exemption u/s. 54 of Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena the Act. Thus, where the assessee complies with the requirement of section 54F(1)(a) of the Act, having regard to the plain language employed therein, he cannot be denied the benefit of exemption by referring to provisions of section 50C of the Act, which is applicable for computation. And in case where the provisions of section 54F(1)(b) are attracted, the proportionate exemption of capital gain is available computed on the actual consideration and not a deemed value. As regards the grounds against initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act' 1961 which is being consequential, may kindly be decided accordingly. Thus, the LTCG as declared by the assessee may kindly be accepted and the assessee strongly objects to reopening of the case u/s 148 of the Act, which is illegal and void, prays accordingly. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: Documents Page No. Reply filed to Ld. AO dated 27.11.2021 & 25.03.2022 (with acknowledgement of response filed) 1-17 Assessment order issued on Oct. 2016 18-20 Notice issued u/s 143(2) rws 147 dated 30.06.2021 in subsequent reassessment proceedings 21-27 Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s 148 (In subsequent reassessment proceedings) 28-31 WS filed with CIT(A) 32-38 ITAT, Jaipur order for Lalit Kumar Kalwar (Similar case) (ITA No. 894/JPR/2017) 39-50 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed summarily submitted that the assessee has filed the ITR which was subjected to scrutiny and thereby the assessment order was also passed on __/10/2016 by ITO, 5(2), Jaipur. Be that it may the Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena reopening for A. Y. 2013-14 cannot be made after six year and the present notice is issued on 30.03.2021 which is barred by limitation and there was no fault on the assessee and the assessment in this case has also been completed. 8. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that in this appeal the assessee has raised ground no. 1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 challenging the present validity of the assessment. Ground no. 2 & 3 are on merits of the dispute and ground no 4 is general does not require any finding. First we take up the legal ground raised by the assessee. The brief facts related to the dispute are that the assessee filed the original Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 3,44,950/-. The return was accordingly processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, assessment for the above assessment year was completed on October, 2016 u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. The ld. AO after that proceeding noted that the assessee has claimed cost of acquisition of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena 8,56,841/- on sale consideration of Rs. 85,99,470/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 74,25,181/-. During the course of examination of assessment record, it is found that the assessee sold agricultural land of Rs. 50,00,000/- and work out long-term capital gain of Rs. 77,42,269/- taking into consideration the value u/s 50C (DLC) of Rs. 85,99,470/-, Further, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 74,25,181/-taking net consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Based on that set of fact the ld. AO noted that there was an excess claim allowed amounting to Rs. 34,25,398/- and thereby the it was considered to reopen the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was given a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 and thereby the assessment was completed on 25.03.2022 making addition of Rs. 34,25,398/-. The bench noted that the year under consideration is 2013-14 and the notice of 148 is given on 30.03.2021 which is beyond six years. To examine the legality of this notice we note from the provision of section 149 of the Act which reads as follows: Time limit for notice- 149. No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under sub- clause (b) or clause (c); (b) b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the income chargeable to tax Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 1074/JP/2025 Lal Chand Meena which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; Considering the above provision of law we hold that for A. Y. 2013-14 notice u/s. 148 issued on 30.03.2021 was beyond the six year and thereby the same is quashed and thereby the assessment made consequent to that invalid notice is also quashed. Based on these observations ground no. 1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 raised by the assessee are allowed. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on technical reasons and therefore, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee become academic. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/11/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1074/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "