9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was discussed. The categorical finding of the CIT(A) has not disproved by the assessee. Therefore, the ground taken with regard to non-service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act is also rejected. Capital gain computation - fair market value of the property is less than the guidance value - whether has erred in invoking the provisions of section 50C ? - It is settled position of law that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CITI [ 2017 (6) TMI 542 - ITAT DELHI ] had held that the Assessing Officer has a bounden duty to educate the assessee regarding the possible reliefs available to him, and even in a case where no specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in the facts of the case. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Bengaluru ought to have held that in the absence of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act the order of assessment is ab-initio-void. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Bengaluru, failed to appreciate that in the absence of service of notice u/s. 142(1), no assessment u/s. 144 could have been passed. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Bengaluru, ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 50C are not applicable in the facts of the case. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add to delete from or amend the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee s share ₹ 11,78,337. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority it was submitted that the reassessment is bad in law and ab initio void since there was no service of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. It was also contended that in absence of service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act, no assessment order could have been passed. On merits it was contended that if at all the capital gain is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, it can be only in respect of shares that fell to the assessee under the Muslim Law as applicable to Sunnis. Further, on merits, it was contended that the Assessing Officer has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the assessee and the case was discussed. The categorical finding of the CIT(A) has not disproved by the assessee. Therefore, the ground taken with regard to non-service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act is also rejected. 8.2. As regards the issue on merits, the assessee contends that the fair market value of the property is less than the guidance value. It was submitted that the impugned property needs to be valued by making a reference to the Valuation Officer. In this context, the learned AR relied on various judicial pronouncements:- (i) Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT reported in 372 ITR 831 (Calcutta) (ii) N. Jagannath v. ITO in ITA No. 2218/Bang/2016 (order dated 16.03.2017) (iii) ITO v. M/s. Aditya Narain Verma ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
