9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 2006-07. However, in the absence of a specific adjudication by the First Appellate Authority, we deem it proper to restore the grounds to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the grounds raised in Form No.35. Ld.CIT(A) is hereby directed to dispose of grounds - Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.2932/Del/2013 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) - - - Dated:- 15-7-2021 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by Sh.Subhash Singhal, CA Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 11.03.2013. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before CIT (A) were not objected to by the ITO in his remand report dated 20/07/2012 and were also accepted by CIT (A) on page 11 of his order but the CIT (A) failed to consider properly the facts and evidences filed before him to support the case. 7. The application of sec 50C and reassessment made in this case be kindly deleted/ cancelled. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment u/s 143 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) was framed vide order dated 31.12.2010. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the property known as Husband Memorial School, Ajmer was disposed off on 29.11.2005 by the assessee Church of North India Trust Association for cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to bring in the property sold in 1995 and possession was given/ payment was received under a written agreement. Registration of sale deed is not pre- condition in Income Tax for a transaction to be treated as sale. Payment possession is sufficient under an agreement. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that Ld.CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the specific grounds taken by the assessee. He submitted that there were two notices issued u/s 148 of the Act wherein first notice was issued on 24.09.2008 and the assessment was completed on 31.12.2010. It was clearly a time barred assessment. Further, he submitted that for the same reasons, another notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 09.12.2009. He contended that the earlier n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions and pursued the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee had taken specific grounds against the re-opening of the assessment by making multi fold submissions; firstly that there cannot be two notices u/s 148 of the Act for the same transaction; secondly, the notice dated 09.12.2009 would be barred by time as the property in question was sold in the year 1995. Further, it is contended that the addition is made by invoking of section 50C(1) of the Act which was inserted in the year 2003 much after transaction was executed. We have perused the entire order of the Ld.CIT(A). We do not find any adjudication on this ground as the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was handed over by the assessee to the buyer and hence it cannot be said that there was a part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982. In view of the above discussion the order of the A.O. is confirmed. 8. During the course of hearing, Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that these grounds have not been adjudicated by way of a speaking order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal before Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh by way of speaking order on each ground raised in Form No.35 by the assessee. We are conscious of the fact that the case being very old related to the Assessment Year 2006-07. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
