9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment Year : 2008-09) - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Shivam Bharadwaj, Advocate Revenue by: Shri G.S Phani Kishore, CIT DR ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 15.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as CIT (A) ]. 2. The Revenue in aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in quashing the assessment order passed u/s 147 / 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that reopening in this case was done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he financial 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 assessee along with other co-owners sold Plot No.8. Industrial Area. Chandigarh for a total consideration of ₹ 22.00 crores. Assessee was having 9/48th share in this property. Assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 as claimed by the appellant. Proceedings under section 147/148 were initiated on the basis of the reasons that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Ms. Malika Mundrey, H.No.2, Sector-10, Chandigarh, it was found that the assessee with above mentioned assessee had sold his 9/48th share in plot No.8, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh on 10.03.2008 for a sum of ₹ 22 crores. This property was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handigarh having l/6th share in the property. 2. The Id. AR Shri Ashok Goyal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the point at issue is fully covered in assessee's favour by virtue of the fact that the said issue had been considered by the ITAT vide order dated 21.12.2016 in ITA 765/CHD/2015 in the case of a coowner namely Rajinder Kaur V ACIT pertaining to the very same assessment year wherein on similar reasoning, re-opening had been resorted to by the AO. The said order, it was submitted, has been followed by the CIT(A) and the ITAT had quashed the re-opening. Copy of the said order was filed in the Court. 3. The Id. DR submitted that though the CIT(A) has followed the order of the ITAT for this specific pie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment. The Assessing Officer merely on assumption, presumption, recording vague and non-existing reasons, recorded the reasons for re-opening of the assessment which are not sufficient to validate the re-opening of the assessment in the matter. Thus, there is no reason to believe with the Assessing Officer to assume the jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 13(i). Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that reasons recorded under section 148 of the Act reflect as arbitrary use of power conferred, under section 147 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of authorities below and quash the re-opening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, Therefore, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal on merit because they become infructuous. Resultantly all additions would be deleted. All Grounds of appeal are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 5. The Ld. DR could not point out any discrepancy in the order of the aforesaid order of the CIT(A). 6. A perusal of the above order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) while quashing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act has followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of co-owner of the assessee in ITO Vs. Ms. Malika Mundrey Saini (supra) having similar facts and circumstances. The Ld. DR could not bring any distinction in the facts and law applicable for this case which may justify our interference in the order of the CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
