9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the facts of the present case and hence bad in law. (b) That without prejudice to above the appellant disputes the quantum of addition has highly excessive. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the present appeal. 2. The facts relating to the issue in dispute are that AO initiated the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by way issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 25.3.2013. In response to the same, AR of the assessee appeared and furnished the written reply dated 17.7.2013 received on 22.7.2013 stating therein that the return already filed on 1.8.2000 may be treated as having been filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. The return was filed on 01.08.2000 declaring income of Rs. 12,40,310/-. AO issued the notice u/s. 143(2)/142 of the Act on 23.7.2013 by registered post which was duly served fixing the case on 6.8.2013 for hearing. In response to the same, assessee nor his AR nor filed any communication. AO again refixed the case of the assessee for 20.8.2013 by way of issuing the notice dated 12.8.2013 u/s. 143(2)/142 of the Act. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, he sold the said land to the said firm i.e. Jagdish Dalal as the assessee was fed up due to false & fabricated litigation against him. He sold the land in order to purchase mental peace. The assessee actually received Rs. 63,00,000/- as consideration stated in the sale deed and not Rs. 13403775/-. 2.2 The matter was referred to the Asstt. Valuation Officer, Rohtak for determining the Fair Market Value of the property so sold by the assessee vide this office reference no. 961 dated 16.01.2014. The AVO, Rohtak vide his office letter dated 18.03.2014, placed on record, has assessed the Fair Market Value of the property in question at Rs. 6300000/- treating it to be a distress sale keeping in view the various petitions on the land as also facts of the case based on the sale instances of other agriculture properties. As such, there is no variation between the sale consideration as shown by the assessee and the Fair Market Value so assessed by the AVO. In view of this position, no addition is warranted to be made on this account. 2.3 According to the AO the assessee was maintaining saving account no. 054010100034229 jointly with Smt. Suman Jain with AXIS Bank. By going through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act on 29.3.2014. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.3.2014, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 12.12.2018 has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and given the relief of Rs. 10 lacs to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- while passing the impugned order. Against the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee draw my attention towards the grounds raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal in which assessee has stated that AO has issued notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, without jurisdiction and hence, the same is bad in law and requested for quashing the same and deletion of addition in dispute. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- without affording opportunity to the assesee which is against the principle of natural justice. In support of his contention, he draw my attention towards the reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice dated 25.3.2013 u/s. 148 of the Act and stated that the AO has issued the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition of Rs. 9.75 lacs. He requested that the issues may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order or alternatively he requested that the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed and impugned order may be upheld. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee alognwith the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book. I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) especially the para no. 5.1 to 5.2 at page no. 12 to 13 of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, I am reproducing the para no. 5.1 to 5.2 as under:- "5.1. Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has objected the jurisdiction of making addition, the submission made by the assessee has been considered and it is seen that AO has reopened the case on valid grounds. Therefore, the re-opening u/s 148 is not invalid. The Hon'ble Kerla High Court in the case of M/s Palakkad Dist. Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT in [2017] 77 taxman n.com 349 (Kerala)/[2017] 392 ITR 539 (Kerala)/[2017] 293 CTR 328 (Kerala) held that "instead of passing an order on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
