9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. Exemption u/s 54F and 54B - assessee claimed to have purchased land on 23rd September, 2009 through an agreement to sale with alleged agreement to sale is unregistered and the payment is also claimed to have been made in cash - HELD THAT:- Though the agreement to sale which has finally culminated in sale deed is relevant only for the purpose of the date of investment, but the alleged agreement to sale itself is not a title document transferring the ownership of land. Therefore, in the absence of subsequent sale deed, the claim of deduction u/s 54B and 54F cannot be allowed based on such unregistered agreement to sale. The assessee has failed to prove that he has acquired the new asset within the prescribed period after the sale of the existing asset. Further the purchase of agricultural land through agreement to sale dated 23rd September, 2009 clearly shows that the assessee has managed that agreement only a day before the expiry of the period. However, when there is no subsequent sale deed, then the unregistered agreement will not transfer any title to the assessee of the agricultural land. Accordingly we do not find any merit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice of notice under section 148 of the IT Act and consequently the assessment framed under section 144 read with section 148 is not sustainable for want of notice. The AO has nowhere stated as to when the notice under section 148 was served. There is vague statement that notice dated 29.12.2009 was served by hand on the assessee. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has shifted from Raipura to Chhawani after selling the agricultural land in the month of September, 2007, therefore, there is no scope of serving the notice under section 148 at the same address from where the assessee already shifted. The ld. A/R has further submitted that the subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) were also claimed to have been served on minor daughter (Anju) and minor grandson (Dinesh) who lives at the old address of Raipura where the assessee did not stay. He has referred to the birth certificates of these two children to show that they were minor at the time of alleged service. Therefore, there was no valid service of notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act. The ld. A/R then referred to the proceedings under which this Tribunal tried to resolve the issue by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as well as copies of the notices issued by the AO which were served upon the family members of the assessee. The ld. D/R has further pointed out that the notice under section 142(1) dated 1st December, 2010 was even served upon the assessee and the assessee has not disputed the service of the same. The said notice was also served at the same address at which the other earlier notices were issued. Therefore, the entire contention of the assessee is an after-thought self serving stand. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has disputed the service of notice dated 29.12.2009 issued under section 148 of the IT Act, therefore, we will decide first the fact whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee or not. As per department s record, the said notice was served through process server and one Pushpa Bai has received the notice on 30.12.2009. The assessee has taken a stand that there is no person in the family of the assessee by the name of Pushpa Bai. The assessee has submitted that the name of the wife of the assessee is Smt. Bhura Bai. In support of his conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the person (s) concerned containing similar letters and their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings/signatures and encircled with pencil and marked as S1, S2, S3 .... Similarly, sufficient admitted genuine writings/signatures written in normal course of routine by the person (s) concerned on some existing documents, containing similar letters their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings/signatures may be obtained and encircled with pencil and marked as A1, A2 A3 .... A questionnaire illustrating the details of questioned and standard (specimen/admitted) writings/signatures and specific query to the effect that which writings/signatures are to be compared with whom, may also be prepared and sent along with the documents. Even otherwise, we find that the disputed signature and the specimen signatures have not a single alphabet/letter of vernacular in common. Therefore, these two written words cannot be compared. Accordingly, the said exercise of verification of the signature remained inconclusive due to unsuccessful attempt for getting the signature verified, we proceed on the basis of material on record. The assessee has taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Compliance 1. 29.12.2009 Notice u/s 148 By hand Non-compliance 2. 13.07.2010 Notice u/s 142(1) By hand to Anju (Grand daughter) Non-compliance 3. 03.09.2010 By hand to Dinesh (Grand son) Non-compliance 4. 11.10.2010 By hand to Dinesh (Grand son) Non-compliance 5.1. Apart from these details, the final notice dated 01.12.2010 was served on the assessee in person. Thus it is clear that despite all these notices, the assessee deliberately did not attend the proceedings before the AO and subsequently challenged the assessment order. It is strange to note that the assessee has disputed the service of notice issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012, however, before loosing his senses prior to brain attack, it was told by the appellant that no notice u/s 148 was served upon him. I have gone through the case record and it was seen that one letter dated 10.12.2010 was served upon assessee s wife and alongwith his thumb impression it was written (wife) Bhura Bai alias Pushpa Bai, this letter is placed as Annexure-A to this order. In view of the above, it is held that Smt. Bhura Bai Smt. Pushpa Bai are one and the same person and assessee has taken a false plea with a view to obtain a wrong decision. It is also held that notice was rightly served on the wife of assessee (Smt. Bhura Bai alias Smt. Pushpa Bai). Subsequent notices u/s 142(1) were also received by other family members of the assessee. Now the question arises whether service of notice on wife of assessee can be treated as proper service or not. Service of notice is to be made as per section 282 of the I.T. Act. Section 282 provides that personal service of notice is to be made in a manner provided under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Sub-rule 15 of code of Civil Procedure, relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. Ground No. 4 5 are regarding denial of exemption under section 54F and 54B of the Act. 6. Though there was no return of income filed by the assessee and also there is no appearance before the AO, however, the assessee made a claim of deduction under section 54F and 54B of the Act before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) called for a remand report from the AO and found that the assessee has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the investment was made for purchase of agricultural land and construction of house. Only some unregistered agreements were produced by the assessee wherein the payment in cash was claimed. 7. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the claim of deduction under section 54F was denied on the ground that the assessee has purchased the agricultural land of ₹ 1,50,000/- in the name of wife. Further, the assessee has also purchased agricultural land of ₹ 40,00,100/- and a house in the name of wife for ₹ 7,20,000/- and claimed deduction under section 54B and 54F of the IT Act. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be allowed based on such unregistered agreement to sale. The assessee has failed to prove that he has acquired the new asset within the prescribed period after the sale of the existing asset. Further the purchase of agricultural land through agreement to sale dated 23rd September, 2009 clearly shows that the assessee has managed that agreement only a day before the expiry of the period. However, when there is no subsequent sale deed, then the unregistered agreement will not transfer any title to the assessee of the agricultural land. Accordingly we do not find any merit or substance in the claim of deduction under section 54B and 54F of the IT Act. The decisions relied upon by the assessee are not directly on the point and further after the amendment in the Transfer of Property Act as well as Registration Act with effect from 2001, the registration is a mandatory condition for applicability of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly the decisions relied upon by the ld. A/R will not help the case of the assessee when there is no title document transferring the ownership. Ground No. 6 is regarding applicability of section 50C of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
