IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 494/SRT/2025

( ) .. ( )

Respondent represented by:

Shri Yogesh B. Shah, AR Date of Hearing S hri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR Date of Pronouncement

19.01.2026 22.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated

24.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC Delhi, has erred in confirming the re- opening of the case of appellant under explanation 2 (a) of section 147 of the Act, Such re-opening is authorized where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee, where the appellant has duly submitted his return income on 30/8/2013 vide ASK 101300813051938 in of response to notice dtd. 29/7/2013 bearing No.NMS/ASNPS6552Q/236136.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the re-opening notice U/s.148 deserves to be quashed.

(2) The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the re-opening the case of appellant even though the appellant duly Furnished reply to the notice U/s.133 (6) dtd. 2/2/2017 where in all the details of LTCG were furnished by the appellant.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice U/s.148 deserves to be quashed as per law.

(3) The learned A.O. has erred in charging interest U/s.234-A, 234-B, 234-C of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the same should not be charged.”

3. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the issue are that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received by the Assessing th Officer that the assessee was a 1/6 co-owner of immovable property which was sold for a total consideration of Rs.2,45,68,140/-. Prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer conducted enquiries and issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that he was owner of 1/6th share in the said property and had already offered the corresponding capital gains to tax and paid due taxes thereon. The assessee also furnished complete details along with documentary evidences in support of computation and payment of taxes. Despite the above submissions and evidences placed on record, the Assessing Officer proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act and completed the reassessment. The reopening was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the facts on record, it is undisputed that the assessee was only a th

1/6 co-owner of the property. The assessee had already disclosed the transaction, computed Long-Term Capital Gain relatable to his share and paid due taxes. All relevant details and evidences were furnished before issuance of notice u/s 148, including in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act. Explanation 2(a) to section 147 deems income to have escaped assessment where no return of income has been furnished, whereas in the present case, the assessee had duly furnished return of income in response to notice u/s 148 and had already discharged his tax liability on the impugned transaction. It is a settled principle of law that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on suspicion or for verification, particularly when the assessee has already disclosed all primary facts and paid due taxes. Once the As