9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The Assessee has also not been able to point out any prejudice caused to him on account of approving Authority not giving him an opportunity of hearing. Claim of deduction u/s. 54B with regard to sale of agricultural land by him - Held that:- Authorities below have found against the Assessee that since the land in question situated at Adyar Village, Mangalore, sold by the Assessee in the relevant period was never used as agricultural land, for a period exceeding two years, therefore the Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. For this reason also, the said finding of fact which is upheld by the two Appellate Authorities as well, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. - I.T.A. No.34/2017 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2018 - DR. Vineet Kothari And MRS. S. Sujatha, J.J. Sri R. Chandrashekar, ADV.- For the Appellant Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, ADV.- For the Respondent JUDGMENT The Assessee Gopal S. Pandit, Proprietor - Pandit Developers, Mangalore, has filed this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short], raising the purported substantial questions of law arising from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority negatived the said contention of the Assessee on the ground that the provisions of Section 153D of the Act, in its term, does not require any such opportunity of hearing to be given to the Assessee by the Authority who is to approve the Draft Assessment Order to be passed by the Assessing Authority. A similar contention though raised before the learned Tribunal by the Assessee was also negatived by the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, however, submitted that Clause-9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume-II [Technical], February 2003 issued by the Directorate of Income Tax on behalf of Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Government of India, has laid down the guidelines for giving such an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee by the Supervisory Officer to the proposed block assessment. He relies upon the Order passed by the Tribunal, Pune Bench B , in the case of Akil Gulamali Somji v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4[5], Pune , decided on 30.03.2012. However, learned Counsel was not having the original Manual of Office Procedure for our perusal. 6. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is quoted below for ready reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oval of the Draft Assessment Order by the higher Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner in the present case, because the Assessment Order was passed by the Authority below the rank of the Joint Commissioner, the provisions of the Act do not mandate that a fresh round of opportunity of hearing should be given to the Assessee by such Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner also even for approving Draft Assessment Order. It is not a case where the Assessee did not have any opportunity of hearing before any of the Authorities to defend his case and some assessment of tax has been made against him fastening the liability of tax against the Assessee. The Assessing Authority as well as the two Appellate Authorities who have concurrent powers of assessment as are available with the Assessing Authority, have admittedly heard the Assessee on the merits of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law in this regard can be said to be arising on the basis of the office guidelines which are for internal purposes of the Department. They are not even statutory instructions issued u/s. 119 of the Act, which if beneficial to Assessee have been held to be binding on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be reduced, by the amount of the capital gain.] (2) The amount of the capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139] in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset : Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilized wholly or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
