Section 148 Reassessment Upheld on ₹69.60 Lakh Property Transaction; Capital Gains Issue Sent Back for Ownership Verification

Background of the Dispute

The case of Amilcar Jose Carlos Alvares Vs ITO (ITAT Panaji) concerns reassessment under Section 147 and the validity of a Section 148 notice initiated on the basis of information that an immovable property was sold for ₹69,60,000 during Assessment Year 2016-17. The reassessment culminated in an addition of long-term capital gain of ₹34,80,000 in the hands of the assessee.

The appeal before the ITAT Panaji arose from an order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the assessment order dated 19.02.2024 framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The assessee challenged both:

  • the jurisdictional validity of the reopening under Section 148, and
  • the substantive addition of long-term capital gains, contending that he was not the owner of the property in question.

Core Facts Considered by the Tribunal

  • Information was received by the Department that an immovable property had been sold for ₹69,60,000.
  • Based on this information, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the procedure under Section 148A(b) and issued a notice to the assessee.
  • The assessee did not file any response to the notice under Section 148A(b).
  • Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued, and reassessment proceedings were completed by treating the assessee as the seller/owner and computing long-term capital gain of ₹34,80,000.
  • In appeal, the assessee argued that:
    • the reassessment was time-barred as it allegedly fell beyond three years;
    • the alleged escaped income threshold condition was not met; and
    • he was not the owner of the immovable property, claiming instead that the property belonged to his wife and her sister as co-owners.

The Tribunal examined both the legal challenge to reopening and the factual challenge to ownership and capital gains.

Challenge to the Reopening under Section 148

The assessee raised multiple grounds (Ground Nos. 1 to 4) essentially arguing:

  • The reopening of assessment beyond three years was not permissible because the alleged income escaping assessment was less than the prescribed limit of ₹30,00,000.
  • The initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Tribunal’s Analysis on Jurisdiction

The Tribunal reviewed the material available with the AO at the stage of reopening and noted the following:

  1. Information of High-Value Sale

    • The AO was in possession of specific information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for ₹69,60,000.
    • This figure is clearly higher than ₹50,00,000, which is a crucial threshold for extended limitation in reassessment in certain circumstances.

  2. Non-Response to Section 148A(b) Notice

    • The AO had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) giving the assessee an opportunity to respond to the information and explain his position.
    • The assessee chose not to respond at all.
    • Due to the absence of any reply, the AO had no details or clarification about:
      • who actually owned the property;
      • whether the assessee was a co-owner or not; or
      • whether the transaction had already been offered to tax in someone else’s hands.