9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned reassessment proceeding was rightly held by the ld.CIT(A) to be invalid - Decided against revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our visit on 22/12/2010 the said land is vacant position only and nothing cultivated in this land. The land is not situated within the Thiruporur Town Panchayat or Mahubalipuram Town Panchayat. Further, Thiruporur is not notified by the CBDT as an urban land. As per Adangal copy issued by VAO of the Village, which is available in the MR, the land were used for Agriculture purpose during the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. Submitted for JCl'T's perusal." Objections of the audit party which was the basis for the reopening read as under:- ''The assessee had declared that he had sold one acre of land at Field-Ill, Green Piece, Sirathavur Kanchi District. He claimed exemption on the ground that this land, being agriculitira ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the audit objections observing as under:- "Assessee's return of income for AY 2008-09 was filed on 26.07.2009 vide Acknowledgement No.14077, admitting a total income of ₹ 4,68,860/-. Amount other things, the assessee had enclosed a detailed working of capital gain resulting from sale of agricultural land as Sirudhauoor Village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The case was picked up for scrutiny by the JCIT, Salary Range- VI, Chennai in November 2010. Details required were filed by the assessee. On 21.12.2010, the assessee had furnished to the Department, a copy of the document relating to the sale of agricultural land which showed that _10,00,000/- was paid to the assessee as development charges. The Addl. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Coming to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.S. Beedies Pvt Ltd (supra) relied on by the ld. Departmental Representative it was a case, when deduction claimed u/s.80G of the Act was given even though recognition granted to the donee institution u/s.80G(5) of the Act had expired. In my opinion, this case would not help the Revenue where the reopening is based on a change of opinion only. The circular relied on by the Department is on monetary limits for filing appeals and has nothing to do with a reopening. Thus the impugned reassessment proceeding was rightly held by the ld.CIT(A) to be invalid. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
