9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance could be made on the reasons recorded in this matter. We, therefore, hold that there is no proper issuance and service of notice u/s 148 in this matter and consequently, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly - ITA No. 4042/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Mahvir Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.05.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-Rohtak for the assessment year 2006-07 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee during appellate proceeding and also admitted by the AO in his remand report that there is mistake in the name of the place which is Dhantera in the notification where as land in question was in Dharuhera . It is prayed that due to above facts and circumstances of the case the property sold in 2005 in Dharuhera may not be allowed to be treated as capital asset. 4 That the Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in law and in facts by confirming the taxing of total receipts of sale of land in place of taxing the capital gain only computed as per provisions of law after deducting the indexed value of the property form the total receipts by holding that this contention does not find place separately in grounds of appeal though cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the core issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of one of the co-owners of the same land. The relevant portion of the order of Co-ordinate Bench reads as under : 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee sold agricultural land situated at Dharuhera, District Rewari for a consolidated sum of ₹ 8,89,12,500/- with other co-sharer on 29.12.2005. Leaned AO made substantive assessment in the name of M/s Mool Chand HUF vide order dated 28.3.2013 and to protect the interest of revenue, he initiated assessment proceedings in the individual capacity of the assessee for which notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in Dharuhera. 5. At the outset, learned AR brought to our notice that the learned CIT(A) extracted the reasons recorded by the learned AO to propose the reopening of the concluded assessment vide para 3.1 of his order. He demonstrated to us that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was said to have been issued on 26.3.2013 with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Rewari, Range-Rewari and after recording the reasons. In the reasons recorded it was stated that the substantive assessment was made vide order dated 28.3.13 in the hands of Mool Chand and to protect the interest of revenue, assessment proceedings are being initiated in the individual capacity being TB matter involved: Learned counsel submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther stated that he land sold b Smt. Shanti Devi wife, Ajit Singh Sunil son and Smt. Savita Shashi Bala daughter of the late Sh Mool Chand on 29.12.2005 was in their individual capacity. Keeping in view the facts, substantive assessment was made vide order dated 28.3.13 in the hands' of M/s Mool Chand HUF and to protect the interest of revenue, assessment proceeding are being initiated in the individual capacity being TB matter involved. The share of the appellant was calculated at ₹ 1,77,55,511/- in the land in question. 7. It is, therefore, clear that either the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not issued on 26.3.2013 or the reasons would not have been recorded on 26.3.2013 or the substantive assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest of revenue, assessment proceedings are being initiated in the individual capacity being T.B. matter involved. The share of the assessee was calculated at ₹ 1,77,55,511/- in the land in question. [Emphasis supplied] 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in both the sets of reasons, there is a reference to the substantive assessment that was in the hands of Mool Chand, HUF and it is only consequent thereto the protective assessment was said to be made in the hands of the assessee. It is, therefore, clear that when the fact does not admit of any doubt that the substantive assessment in the hands of Mool Chand, HUF on 28.3.13, it would not have been possible for the AO to record the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
