9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee s claim of deduction against capital gain returned to tax with that of Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi. AO is not even aware of the Section under which the assessee has claimed deduction of its capital gain. In view of the same, we agree with assessee that, on the basis of information regarding incorrect claim of deduction of capital gain by Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi, AO could not have arrived at a belief that the assessee s income had also escaped assessment in the absence of complete particulars of deduction claimed by the assessee against the capital gain returned by him. It is settled law that the fulfilment of one of the basic condition for initiating action u/s 147 of the Act, of the AO having reason to believe that incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Hardik Vora, AR For the Revenue : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) for short] dated 01.05.2015 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows:- 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of revision proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961 by CIT-III Ahmedabad in the case of Shri Riddhish Balkrishna Trivedi, it was found that as per the sale deed dated 08/06/2007 available on record, Shri Riddhish Balkrishna Trivedi along with his mother Smt. Sudhaben B. Trivedi and Shri Radheshyam Purshottam Trivedi had sold the land situated at final plot No. 27 in TP Scheme No. 37 (Danilimda North), Sector-5 (Akhari Yojna) admeasuring 9,286 square meters on 08/06/2007 to M/s. Deeodeep Malls Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 7,81,00,000/-. Shri Riddhish Balkrishna Trivedi was having one fourth share in the land so sold, Smt Sudhaben B. Trivedi was also having one fourth share in the aforesaid land so sold and the rest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lieve that income has been escaped to the extent of Rs. (1,12,50,970 +16,25,000) 1,28,75,970/- in the case of Shri Radheshyam P. Trivedi (PAN ABBPT0241Q). 4. On going through the contents of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as above, we are in complete agreement with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no live link between the information available with the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief of escapement of income in the case of the assessee. 4.1 The reasons, in the first two paragraphs, reveal the information in the possession of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which he formed the belief of escapement of income in the case of the assessee. As per the said paragraph, we find that the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed deduction. Therefore, this portion of the reason only records certain factual information relating to the capital gain returned by the assessee and reveal that the Assessing Officer was not even aware under which Section the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 1.97 crores. From this, he concludes that it is a clear-cut case of tax evasion. 4.3 We fail to understand how the Assessing Officer arrives at this conclusion. The information in his possession being that Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi had claimed incorrect deduction u/s 54B of the Act of capital gain in which the assessee was also a co-owner, there is nothing in the reason revealing that there was any identity of facts of the assessee s claim of deduction against capital gain r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of Rs. 1,12,50,970/- and expenses incurred on transfer of Rs. 16,25,000/- and the Assessing Officer himself notes that the amount of Rs. 1,12,50,970/- includes expenditure on transfer of Rs. 16,25,000/-. Therefore, firstly, the addition of Rs. 16,25,000/- to Rs. 1.25 crores is grossly incorrect for arriving at the income which has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee. Secondly, there is no basis mentioned in the reasons for the belief of the Assessing Officer that the assessee s entire claim of deduction under Section 48 of the Act was incorrect. And this escapement of income has absolutely no link or correlation with the information in the possession of the AO that the other co-owner of land had incorrectly claimed deduction u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
