9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase was passed on 18-11-2011. The assessment record was called for during the course of hearing. It was revealed that the JCIT vide letter dated 02-02-2012 addressed to the AO has intimated for appropriate action u/s.147 in the case of the assessee on account of receipt of unaccounted income in cash in respect of land deals with M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009- 10. A copy of the letter addressed by the JCIT to the AO was filed by the Ld. Departmental Representative at the time of hearing which is placed on record. Therefore, at the time of passing of the assessment order the AO was not in possession of the letter received from JCIT (OSD) Central Circle-39, Mumbai. In absence of any such information at the time of completion of the assessment the AO could not have asked the assessee to explain the cash transactions, if any with M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. Therefore, on the basis of a subsequent letter addressed to the AO after completion of the assessment the Ld.CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 on this issue holding that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income arising on account of this agreement pertains to the assessee and he should have offered the same for taxation. He noted that similar transaction has been entered in respect of another land at Survey No.7, Wangani where entire amount of advance of ₹ 1 lakh was paid by the assessee. However, the sale price has been distributed between the assessee and Shri Sunil T. Patil. 4. He further noted that information was received from the JCIT, Central Circle-29, Mumbai that the assessee has received ₹ 9,28,72,500/- from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. in cash against the sale of land in A.Y. 2009-10 which has not been offered by the assessee for taxation. The AO has not made proper enquiries and cross verifications with respect to transactions entered into by the assessee and the income earned by him from these transactions. The above omissions on the part of the AO rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, he issued a notice u/s.263 of the I.T. Act to the assessee calling for his response. 5. The assessee in his response submitted that both transactions mentioned in the notice u/s.263 were explained by him during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, he set aside the order of the AO passed u/s.143(3) on 18-11-2011 with a direction to redo the assessment denovo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT the assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds : 1. The Ld. CIT erred in passing order u/s.263 setting aside the assessment of making fresh assessment denovo. 2. The Ld.CIT erred in passing order u/s.263 without giving finding as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The appellant prays that : (i) order u/s.263 may be set aside and cancelled and the original assessment order may be restored. (ii) Recovery of demand in dispute may be stayed. (iii) Personal hearing may be granted. (iv) Any other relief your honours may deem fit 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT. She submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has furnished all details regarding the land transactions. The books of accounts were also p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras) 6. CIT Vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. reported in 309 ITR 67 7. Puranlal Agrawal (HUF) Vs. CIT reported in 131 TJ 78 (Nag.) 8. CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers reported in (2010) 194 Taxmann 57 (Delhi) 9. CIT Vs. Design Automation Engineers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. reported in 323 ITR 632 10. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 1679 11. CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) 12. Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 707 10. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld.CIT . 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Ld.CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 on two issues, i.e. (i) instead of showing the entire sale proceeds the assessee has shown only 50% of the sale proceeds as his income which the AO failed to verify and (ii) the AO has not made proper enquiries regarding the cash received amounting to ₹ 9,28,72,500/- from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. against sale of land. 12. So far as the first issue is concerned we find from the various agreements and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
