Kul Bharat ORDER
Kul Bharat, Member (J)
1. This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.09.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following revised and concised grounds of appeal:
"1. That the appellant had filed ITR for Asst. year 2011-12 u/s. 139, wherein full and true details of funds for purchase of DDA Flat at Dwarka Delhi were reflected on page 2/7 of return. If these details had been considered by AO, there was no reason for reassessment and issue of notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act 1961, on 14 March 2018.
2. That the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on the basis of information provided by DDIT (INV) Jammu that appellant has purchase a DDA Flat at Delhi Costing Rs. 78,00,500/- Ltd. AO considered it as new tangible material and issued the said notice. Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same in its order dated 02-09-2022.
3. That Ld. AO did not supply reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 20.3.2018 as demanded by appellant, and subsequently requested through four speed post letters for the same.
4. That the reopening of the case for reassessment is without jurisdiction, the notice issued u/s. 148 of IT Act 1961 on 14.3.2018 be declared invalid and subsequent proceeding be quashed."
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") and an assessment u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was framed vide order dated 28.12.2018. The Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 27,30,548/- after making addition of Rs. 22,71,048/- in respect of capital gain. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Apropos to the grounds of appeal the assessee submitted that the reopening of the assessment is invalid and is contrary to the judicial pronouncements. He contended that despite request for supply of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not supply the reasons. He submitted that the basis of reopening is ill founded. The assessee could not make proper objection against such reopening as the reasons were not supplied to the assessee. The assessee took me through the documents filed in the form of paper book.
4. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions of the assessee and submitted that the reopening was on the basis of the information received by the Assessing Officer regarding transaction in immovable property. He contended that the correctness of the claim regarding capital gains and deduction u/s. 54F was required to be examined and verified. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe regarding escapement of taxable income.
5. In rejoinder the assessee pointed out that in the return of income he had given a note regarding computation of capital gain. Therefore, it is not the case where the assessee had concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As per the assessment order the case was reopened on the basis of the information relating to purchase of DDA flat at Dwarka in auction conducted by the learned Receiver appointed by the Hon'ble High Court during ........