9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g heard was extended to the assessee, therefore order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is set aside and direct the CIT to pass an order afresh after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we are remitting the matter back to the file of CIT, the other grounds raised in this appeal have become merely academic and therefore not adjudicated upon - In the result, all three appeals filed by the assesses are treated as allowed for statistical purposes - IT(SS) 20/Hyd/07, 46/Hyd/2009 and 3/Hyd/09 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2012 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JJ. Appellants by : S/Shri K.A. Sai Prasad M.S. Dayakar Respondent by : Smt. Nivedita Biswas ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns stated above happened to be the descendent of the original owners. A company in the name and style of M/s Sai Sri Financiers and M/s Sai Sri Projects Pvt. Limited owned by one Sri M. Sambasiva Rao had engaged Mr. Ambati Satyanarayana as a middleman/broker for negotiating a purchase deal of the entire land of 10160 sq. Yards from the three group of owners as mentioned above. Some sale agreements were also prepared for such proposed transfer of land by Sri Ambati Satyanarayana on behalf of the owners In September, 1999, the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India had conducted certain inquiries/investigation in to alleged violation of foreign exchange Regulation Act, provision by Sri Samabasiva Rao promoter of two companies mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by the assessee from the purchaser i.e. Sri Sai Sree Financiers and Sri Sai Sree Projects was Rs.84 lakhs. The AO further observed that the since the property was inherited by the assessee along with his other relatives from their fore fathers prior to 1-4-1981, the cost of acquisition was adopted at Rs.40/- per sq. Yard on the basis of information obtained from the land registering authorities and the indexed cost of acquisition for the year of sale 1995-96 was determined at Rs.1,09,958/-. On the basis of indexed cost of acquisition an amount of Rs.82,90,015/- was charged to tax as long term capital for block period 1995-96 to 2002-03. The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal before the CIT (A). 4. The CIT (A) taking into cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restoring the entire issue to the file of the AO for re-examination. The ITAT in case of Smt. Andalamma thought it just and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for re-examination. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:- We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the CIT (A) has not considered the facts of the case and in the case of the purchaser M/s Sai Sree Projects Pvt. Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 10-2-2012 has decided the issue in IT(SS)A Nos. 26 and 27/Hyd/2007. The Tribunal has held as follows: We heard both the sides and perused the impugned order of the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to one of the groups out of above-mentioned three groups. When the CIT (A) has based his findings on the facts relating to Smt. Andalamma, we think it proper to set aside the order passed by the CIT (A) in case of the present assessee also, and restore the matter back to the file of the AO who shall re-examine the issue in the light of our above directions. 9. In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. IT(SS) A No. 3/Hyd/09:- 10. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 28- 3-2008 passed by the CIT-VI, Hyderabad u/s 263 of the Act. 11. Though the assessee has raised 8 grounds, at the outset, the learned AR confines his arguments to ground No.2 only which relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity of hearing to the assessee after rejecting the application for adjournment. The learned AR submitted that in this factual background, the order passed u/s 263 needs to be set aside. 14. The learned DR also fairly submitted that the order u/s 263 requires to be set aside as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee. 15. We have heard rival contentions and perused he materials on record. It is apparent from the order passed u/s 263 by the CIT that the case was posted on 27-3-2008 on which date, son of the assessee filed a letter praying for adjournment on medical ground. The CIT passed his order on the very day itself, rejecting the request of the assessee. In our view, such an order passed by the CIT is in gross vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
