9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is seen that the ld.CIT has not taken any steps for reopening the case of other co-owners viz. Smt. Hiraben Shantilal and Smt. Indiraben Shantilal and thereby accepted similar long term capital gain and on the said transaction. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee cannot be treated differently for similar transaction - assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 is hereby quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 1893/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2022 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad, as against the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Agreement to Sale and that too also as applicable to Agriculture Land. Under the circumstances of the case, no addition could have been made. 3. Both the Id. Authorities have erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and considering various submissions, evidences and supporting placed on record during the course of the assessment proceedings and not properly appreciating various facts and laws in its proper perspective. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act 3. The ld. Counsel Shri Sulabh Padshah appearing for the assessee submitted before us. The brief notes of the above case as well as Paper Book running into 12 pages wherein copies of the assessment order dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the case of other co-owners namely Smt. Hiraben Shantilal and Smt. Indiraben Shantilal. Wherein the returned income by the concerned assessee s of Rs. 1,10,090/- were being accepted and the above reassessment order have been passed. In fact, the above reassessment were reopened for escapement of income to Rs. 52,73,470/- by invoki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irections, the matter stands restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and by way of a speaking order. I order so. 3.3. Ld. Counsel further submitted as can be seen from the other two co-owners namely Smt. Hiraben Shantilal and Smt. Indiraben Shantilal cases. Therefore, the assessing officer has not invoked Section 50C of the Act and accepted the returned income filed by the assessee. The above reassessment has attained finality and not a subject matter of Revision by the ld. PCIT. Thus, the Ld. PCIT before verification of other co-owners cases as initiated the u/s. 263 proceedings in the present assessee s case which is against the principle of equity of law as enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3.4. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the Hon ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kumarani Smt. Meenakshi Achi reported in 158 Taxmann.com 4 (MDS); Sangram J Patel vs. DCIT in ITA No. 377/Ahd/2018 order dated 25.10.2021 and also relied by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO reported in 127 taxmann.com 342 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authorities sanctioned, it would militate against the principle of equality of law as enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution, vide Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477 (Punj. Har.). 5.1. Similarly, Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Sangram J. Patel Vs. DCIT (supra) has held as follows: 12.4 It is not also out of place to mention that the assessee was the co-owner in the property along with his brother. The claim of the assessee's brother by the same AO was accepted and the deduction/exemption was allowed for the investment made by the co-owner with M/s Sharnam builders for the purchase of the property. In such a situation, we are of the view that the AO was to maintain the consistency. In simple words, the AO cannot reject the claim of the assessee whereas in the case of the brother of the assessee in the identical facts and circumstances, the same was accepted. Accordingly on this count, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Hence, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
