9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn. In that statement, particulars of the land sold, sale consideration realised "cost of land as on1st Jan., 1954" and other particulars for the computation of the capital gains was also worked out and quantified. It would be useful to extract here what exactly the assessee disclosed in the original return: "Statement showing gain on the sale of Agrl. land into plots in the case of Shri Abhilash Chand Sharma R/o Patharwalan Meerut, A/C period1st April, 1973to31st March, 1974. Total Area sold . Share of 4013 Sq. yard Abhilash Chand . . . 2006.5 sq. yd. . Saleconsideration for the area . . 60,344,00 Less : Cost of land . . . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring the assessee, the ITO dropped the proceedings under s. 154 by order dt.9th Aug., 1979. Meanwhile, the ITO issued a notice under s. 148 dt.26th Sept., 1979under s. 147(a). It appears that the assessee made an application under s. 144-A for this assessment year as well as for the asst. yr. 1973-74. The IAC (B-Rang, Merrut) passed an order under s. 144-A in the matter on14th Sept., 1979. This made the following points: (i) The assessee had duly worked out the extent of capital gains and also filed a statement along with the return. But the assessee claimed the capital gains as exempt from tax. Such capital gains were not shown in the return of income and no mention of the same was made in Part III of the return. There was thus omission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther deduction @35 per cent 13,052 24,238 . . . . 31,364 Agricultural income for rate purposes as shown in the return . 3,000" . The ITO recorded the following position regarding the cost of land as on1st Jan., 1954and the cost of development charges: "The assessee has filed the working of cost of land as on 1st Jan., 1954 at Rs. 9 per sq. yard and cost of development charges @ 84 NP sq. yard in view of the appellate order for the asst. yr. 1975-76. Since the assessee had claimed the cost of land @ Rs. 6 per sq. yard development charges in the original papers filed on the basis of certificate of approved Govt. valuer the cost of land as on1st Jan., 1964is ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay inform himself about the correct position from the material already on record. When the ITO becomes so aware of the correct position it is tantamount to the ITO receiving information, which leads him to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On the other hand, Shri P. P. S. Tyagi, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that by no stretch of imagination could this be taken as a case of s. 147(a). The assessee is only expected to place all materials facts before the ITO. It can be in the return itself or it may be in the form of statements filed at any time before the completion of the assessment. There is no dispute that all the relevant and material facts were placed before the ITO before the original assessment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO after the previous assessment no doubt. But even if the information be such, that it could have been obtained during the previous assessment from an investigation of the material on record or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into the facts or law but was not in fact obtained, the jurisdiction of the ITO is not effected. (b) CIT vs. Ayodhya Kumari (1985) 46 CTR (Raj) 272 : (1985) 154 ITR 604 (Raj). Where reassessment has been made under s. 147(a), it is open to the AAC to treat it as one properly made under s. 147(b) provided that, on the material on record, all necessary conditions prescribed under s. 147(b) are satisfied. The ITO has apparently proceeded under s. 147(a). This does not mean the reasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd maintain the assessment as validly done in pursuance of action taken under s. 147(b). C. O. No. 183/85 8. Objection taken here is that, in case the order of the AAC is vacated, then the assessee s objections on merits, i.e. on the assessability of the capital gains in the hands of the assessee and without prejudice to the same, on the quantum of capital gains assessed and the levy of interest under s. 139(8) had to be adjudicated upon. The AAC did not deal with these objections as he struck down the reassessment itself as bad in law. We have, however, restored the reassessment as valid and hence we restore the objections of the assessee raised in the cross-objection to the file of the AAC for consideration afresh and disposal in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
