9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sathekhat does not mention anywhere the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore. There is no dispute that assessee purchased land from Mr. Phaltane vide registered sale deed dated 18.07.2009 for Rs. 55,00,000/-. The allegation of the AO that land was purchased for Rs. 1.50 crore is without any evidence. Thus, the AO has failed to establish, based on the impugned document, that there was escapement of any income in the reasons recorded; therefore, the reopening is quashed. We find support from the observations of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the reopening reason the AO has also mentioned that assessee has claimed excess depreciation. However, there is no addition made by the AO on this basis. Addition as based on the impugned Sathekha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was Rs. 1,50,00,000 and not Rs. 55,00,000. (iv) No Independent inquiry made by the Ld.AO before issuing notice u/s. 148. (v) Cross Examination not provided Relief Claimed: The re-assessment proceedings are bad in law the same may be quashed. Ground 2 The Honorable CIT (NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- made by the Ld.AO, despite the following facts: i) Objections raised by the appellant vide its letter dated 05-12-2018 were not disposed off by passing a speaking order as held by apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v/s. ITO 259 ITR 19. ii) The two Sathe Khats on the basis of which the entire reassessment is made by the Ld. AO did not conclusively, explicitly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee on 03.04.2017. The assessee vide his letter dated 07.02.2018 requested the AO to treat the Return of Income original filed on 16.06.2011 as the Return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, after giving opportunity to the assessee, the AO passed assessment order dated 28.12.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission of ld.Authorised Representative (ld. AR) : 4. The ld.AR filed a paper book. The ld. AR invited our attention to reasons recorded for reopening which were on page no. 2 and 3 of the paper book. As per the said r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 1.50 crore is mentioned. Thus, it is clear that the reopening is based on a Sathekhat alleging sale consideration of Rs. 1.50 crore, but said Sathekhat does not mention anywhere the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore. There is no dispute that assessee purchased land from Mr. Phaltane vide registered sale deed dated 18.07.2009 for Rs. 55,00,000/-. However, the allegation of the AO that land was purchased for Rs. 1.50 crore is without any evidence. Thus, the AO has failed to establish, based on the impugned document, that there was escapement of any income in the reasons recorded; therefore, the reopening is quashed. We find support from the observations of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. 6.1 The Hon ble Bombay High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
