9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses to non agriculturists, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A.No.545/Viz/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) - - - Dated:- 30-8-2019 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR Respondent by: Smt.Suman Malik, DR ORDER Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Visakhapatnam vide I.T.A. No.1005/2013-14/ITO,W-2(2),VSP/2014-15 dated 16.09.2014 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2007-08. 2. During the appeal hearing, the assessee raised additional ground challenging the validity of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) and argued that the additional ground is a legal ground which goes to the root of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the complete facts are available in the assessment records with the lower authorities and no verification or investigation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs relating to sale of agricultural land of 1.26 acres in the year 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y.2007-08. As per the information available before the AO, the assessee has sold the property in the capacity of GPA holder but not as the owner, thus, the source of deposit made in the bank account could not be presumed from the sale proceeds of agricultural land thus the source for deposit remained unexplained. Hence, the AO formed a belief that the income of ₹ 37.80 lakhs had escaped assessment. The Ld.DR further submitted that though the AO has formed the belief that the sum of ₹ 37.80 lakhs required to be taxed as unexplained source of investment, the fact remains that the sum of ₹ 37.80 lakhs was sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land which the assessee has not offered for tax. The assessee has not admitted the above sum of ₹ 37.80 lakhs for capital gains for the A.Y. 2007-08 though it was liable for tax. Since it is same transaction and the subject matter is one and the same, simply because of the nomenclature given in reasons for reopening the assessment does not match the same should not lead to invalidity of notice issued u/s 148. Since the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of notice u/s 148 to reassess the income of the assessee for the Asst.year 2007-08. 6.1. From the above, it is found that the assessment for the A.Y. 2007-08 was completed u/s 143(1) and no assessment was made u/s 143(3). During the F.Y.2006-07, the assessee has sold the property for a consideration of ₹ 37.80 lakhs out of which a sum of ₹ 31 lakhs was deposited in Canara bank and receiving the interest from the bank account. The agricultural lands were acquired to the extent of 1.26 acres vide registered sale deed dated 21.04.2004 on 07.05.2004 under Sy.No.46/2 in Paradeshipalem for a sum of ₹ 4.00 lakhs including registration fee and stamp duty and sold 0.76 cents to M/s Dhatri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam for a consideration of ₹ 22,80,000/- and 0.50cents to Gumma V.S.S.Nagesh, Srikakulam for a consideration of ₹ 15,00,000/-. Thus the assessee has received the sum of ₹ 37.80 lakhs towards sale of agricultural land during the financial year 2006-07 and the assessee did not offer the sale consideration for the purpose of capital gains tax. In the instant case, the assessment was also not made by the AO u/.s 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a notice u/s 148, the AO has accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assessee some other income. In the instant case, the AO has formed an opinion for escapement of income relating to the deposits made in the bank account amounting to ₹ 31 lakhs. The said income was not admitted as tax by the assessee under the head capital gains and there is no dispute that the sum of ₹ 37.80 lakhs had escaped assessment which the AO has made the addition in the impugned assessment under capital gains. At the time of forming the belief the AO viewed that the said amount was unexplained source of investment, whereas the said deposit has taken the shape of capital gains with larger amount. Merely because the nomenclature is different, when the transaction and the subject matter is the same, the case law relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the assessee s case. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Swarna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
