9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at:- in view of decision in the case of Shri Jay Harshad Shah (HUF) vs. ITO [2013 (11) TMI 74 - ITAT MUMBAI], wherein it was held that it is only the processing u/s. 143(1) which was completed in assessee's case and AO took proceedings in all the group cases as can be seen from the various orders before ITAT for examining the capital gains computation. Since not only in assessee's case but action was taken in other co-owners case, we are of the opinion that action of the AO has to be upheld, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court] – Decided partly in favor of Assessee. - ITA No. 1177/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4,21,00,000/- as per Development Agreement dated 22-06-04. As per the Bombay Stamp Office Authorities1 valuation of the property was determined at Rs. 4,94,61,600/- and stamp duty on the same was paid by the purchaser. The assessee computed its Long Term Capital Gain based on his share of the sale value of the property as per the sale consideration as per Development agreement stated above. The learned Assessing Officer calculated the Long Term Capital Gain by taking the Stamp Office Valuation of Rs. 4,94,61,600/- instead of sale consideration of Rs. 4,.21,00,000/- without referring the valuation to the valuation department as required U/s 50C of the Act. The assessee requested vide their letters dated 04-12-2007 and 08-12- 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the order of Shri Jay Harshad Shah (HUF) vs. ITO in ITA No. 1178/Mum/2012. 7. The AR pointed out that the issue of reopening has been sustained by the coordinate Bench in Para 5, wherein, it was observed, "5. The ld. Counsel referring to the issue of section 148 submitted that the assessee has enclosed sale agreement to the return filed and since return was accepted u/s. 141 there is no tangible material to re-open the assessment u/s. 147. He relied on various decisions for the proposition that re-opening can not be accepted if there is no other tangible material. After considering objections/submissions of the assessee, we noticed that it is only the processing u/s. 143(1) which was completed in assessee's case and AO took procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ITAT in other co-owner cases and also principles laid down on the above two issues. Before deciding the issue, assessee should be given due opportunity in the proceedings. With these directions, the issue of ground No.2 is restored to the file of AO". 10. The AR, therefore, submitted that for the sake of consistency in the cases of the co-owners, and for a uniform observation, the instant case deserves to be restored to the AO with the similar findings. 11. The DR placed reliance on the decisions of the revenue authorities. 12. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view, that the coordinate Bench in the case of the co-owner Shri Jay Harshad Shah (HUF) deserves to be followed, wherein, the issue of reopening is sustained, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
