9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment, jurisdiction assumed by the AO in this case is not valid. Accordingly, relevant ground / additional grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 977/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2020 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM Assessee by : Shri M. Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri Prashant Mahajan ORDER PER SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Pune dated 10.05.2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 declaring total income at ₹ 2,28,780/- on 06.06.2011. Originally, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The case was reopened b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment in loan of ₹ 26,00,000/- given to Mr. Vishal Kedari. 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the reassessment proceedings to reject assessee's claim of exemption of ₹ 15,00,000/- claimed u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act from Long Term Capital Gains. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the additional ground No. 2 raised before him challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act from long term capital gains of ₹ 15,00,000/-, by simply holding that there is no merit in the claim of the assessee as, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore wants to file the following additional ground of appeal. Additional Ground of Appeal The assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed in this case u/s 143{3) of the Income Tax Act is invalid and unsustainable in law. The assessment order therefore may be quashed. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the above mentioned additional ground of appeal is purely legal ground and all the relevant facts for adjudicating the ground is already available on record and no new facts are required to be investigated. The additional ground could not be taken at the time of filing the appeal for bonafide reasons as the judgment of the Hon'ble Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 06-09-2019, in the case of Gulab 8adguja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) - whether mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of Sec.47(iii), would not enable Revenue to resort to Sec.147 of the Act and it is also held yes. Discussion given in Para 26 of the Judgment is relevant and the same is thoroughly relied upon by the Ld.A.R Subsequently, Ld.A.R. brought my attention to the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Mr. Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani Vs. ITO (ITA No.1241/PUN/2019 order dated 16.10.2019) wherein the Tribunal did not allow the re-opening of the assessment merely for verification of cash transactions. Reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws are cited above. For the sake of ready reference, the above mentioned legal propositions are discussed hereunder : (a) Para 26 of the Judgment in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom). 26. This is a stand taken in the affidavit in reply but what we find is that the gift without any consideration and as noted in the reasons recorded and supplied has not been termed as one which attracts any tax or which is chargeable to tax and therefore there is any income which has escaped assessment. In other words, the amount of ₹ 1,21,33,429/- shown as gift has not been termed as an income and which is chargeable to tax and which has escaped assessment. All that is required from the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot seek to undertake an undertaking a fishing or roving inquiry or seek to verify the claim as if he is the scrutiny officer. 9. Considering the above facts, the referred decisions / judgments and in the absence of any tangible material, AO s reason of mere verification for re-opening the assessment, I am of the opinion, the jurisdiction assumed by the AO in this case is not valid. Accordingly, relevant ground / additional grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee. 10. Considering the relief given on the legal issue, in my view, the adjudication of the other grounds on merits become academic exercise. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on merits stands dismissed. Thus, the ground No.1 read with additional ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
