9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded as owner of the land. In view of this document also those five individuals are owner of their respective shares, and no evidence of any ownership in the hands of Moolchand HUF has been filed by the Revenue before us. We are of opinion that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any error in the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. - ITA No. 4214/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2021 - O.P. Kant, Member (A) And Kuldip Singh, Member (J) For the Appellant : Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR For the Respondents : Mahavir Singh, Adv. ORDER PER O.P. Kant, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 16/05/2016 passed by the learned Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 'the Act') and assessed the capital gain on transfer of the land in the hands of Moolchand HUF on substantive basis. The Assessing Officer also assessed the said capital gain in the hand of five individuals i.e. sons and daughter of late Sh. Moolchand on protective basis. The five individuals along with the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) treated the income on transfer of land on substantive basis in the hands of five individuals and deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee, holding that no double addition can be made for the same transaction. 2.2. Before us, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order of the Learned CIT(A) in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sets of reasons, there is a reference to the substantive assessment that was in the hands of Mool Chand, HUF and it is only consequent thereto the protective assessment was said to be made in the hands of the assessee. It is, therefore, clear that when the fact does not admit of any doubt that the substantive assessment in the hands of Mool Chand, HUF on 28.3.13, it would not have been possible for the AO to record the reasons in this case on 26.03.2013. It suggests that the reasons and the notice u/s. 148 of the Act are ante dated or at the lease that they are not property recorded. 10. In this set of facts and circumstances, it is difficulty to say that there was proper issuance of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and no rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
