9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter it is considered first. 02. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned assessment year was the first one in which assessee was assessed in the status of HUF. According to the Ld. AR the AO issued notice u/s.148, dt.25.03.2013. As per the Ld. AR pursuant to such notice assessee had filed a return for the impugned assessment year and also requested the AO to furnish him a copy of the reasons recorded for issue of notice. As per the Ld. AR assessee had specifically stated in the said letter dt.12.08.2013 placed at paper book page 9 that the reasons were being sought by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19]. As per the Ld. AR, such reasons were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ITA.1867 of 2013, dt.16.09.2014 and that of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kothari Metal [W. A. No.218/2015 [IT] dt.14.08.2015]. 03. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that assessee had entered into a joint development agreement with Vaswani Estates Developers P. Ltd, for development of land measuring 1 acre and 21.58 guntas. As per the Ld. DR, vide this joint development agreement assessee was entitled to 31% of the super built-up area upon completion of the project and this 69% of the land stood conveyed to the builder. Capital gains arising to this transaction was not reported and assessee had failed to file a return of income for impugned assessment year. It was for this reason that the assessment was reopened. Assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In our opinion awareness of the assessee as to the reason why notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in this regard. No doubt Ld. DR has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. C. Palaniappan [(2011) 241 CTR 207] where it was held that non-furnishing of reasons was only a supervening illegality and would not render the proceedings void by itself. However, we find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Samcor Glass Ltd [supra] and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trend Electronics [supra] had held that jurisdictional issues should be strictly complied with by the authorities concerned and no question of knowledge being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
