9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he was aware of the jurisdiction of the DCIT over the assessee and inspite of that have initiated proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that as soon as the Income Tax Officer realized that he lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee, the case was immediately transferred to the file of the DCIT who again issued a notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act. Since one of the Officers who has concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, we are satisfied that the proceedings u/s 147 have been validly initiated. The assessee’s additional ground of appeal is thus rejected. Disallowance of eviction charges in respect of three persons in computing the capital gains - Held that:- The undispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 689/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad For Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao, DR ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. M. This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of eviction charges in respect of three persons in computing the capital gains. 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the amount of ₹ 3.00 lakhs paid to village elders in computing the capital gains . 2. In addition thereto, the assessee has also filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer who had the jurisdiction had never issued any notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, according to him, the proceedings u/s 147 is void ab initio. In support of these contentions, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. M/s. Indus Valley Investment Finance P Ltd in ITA No.4239/Del/2011 dated 6.7.2012. ii) Mehta Brothers vs. I.T.O in ITA No.2822/Del/2008 dated 30th June, 2010. iii) Mohd. Rizwan vs. I.T.O reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 160 (Lucknow Trib). iv) Indoram Software Solution Ltd vs. I.T.O reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 78 (Mum.) 5. The learned DR however, submitted that the Officer who had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the Officer who had subsequently issued notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Income Tax Authorities and sub-section 3 thereof prescribes criteria for assigning the jurisdiction over an assessee. The various criteria to be considered are: (a) Territorial area; (b) persons or classes persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. In the case before us, we find that both the Officers below have territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessee has filed the return of income before the DCIT while notice u/s 148 has been issued by the Income Tax Officer. Thus, it is seen that both the Officers have concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee as far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned. It is not clear from the records whether the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the property to the purchaser, the assessee s husband had to pay certain amounts to the occupants and the same was claimed as expenditure. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that at least the expenditure in support of which, the affidavits have been filed may be allowed as an expenditure. Similarly, with regard to the payment made to the village elders, he prayed that it is a common practice that the village elders are settling such disputes and are paid some amounts towards village development activity. Therefore, according to him, all these expenditure is for transfer of the property and is to be allowed as expenditure in relation thereto. 9. The learned DR however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
