9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are devoid of merits and the same are hereby rejected. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the Revision order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, as against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Today is the 20th time of hearing of the above appeal, even in the previous occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However the assessee filed a revised Form No. 36 substituting the legal heir in the place of the deceased assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR Shri Shramdeep Sinha submitted similar is the case that of the assessee s wife Smt. Lilaben Babubhai Sakhiya and assessee s son Shri Kisho Babubhai Sakhiya wherein the respective appeals filed by them were also dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide exparte order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, the ld. Pr.CIT set aside assessment order by a speaking order observing as follows: ..6. The assessee's submission has been carefully examined. In para 3 of the submission the assessee has contended that the actual date of transfer of the capital asset was 15.08.2010 and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned as 15.04.2010. The assessee has thus contended that the land was held for more than 2 years. This contention of the assessee is not acceptable as in the statement of total income forming part of the return of income, the assessee has given a working of the capital gain wherein the date of transfer of capital asset is mentioned as 15.04.2010. As regards the contention that during the course of the assessment proceedings working of capital gain was given wherein the date of transfer was specifically mentioned as 15.08.2010, no such submission is found in the assessment record. In the record there is no submission to prove that an entry was passed in the books of accounts of the assessee's proprietary business on 15.08.2010 through which the land in question was converted into stock in trade. 7. In para 4 of the submission the assessee has contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asset is considered as 16.12.2010, the deduction u/s. 548 cannot be allowed due to the following reasons: (a) In the submission dated 09.09.2013 submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee has enclosed copies of documents in respect of land purchased for which deduction u/s. 54B of the Act has been claimed. The details of the investment is as follows: Sr. No. Particulars of land Purchase price/investment amount as per purchase deed Date of purchase deed 1 Survey No. 60/10 of Village Kanagshiali 12,64,600/- (half share 2529200/2 16.9.2010 2 Survey No. 84 of Village kanagshiali 25,50,000 23.02.2011 (b) Of the above 2 lands on which deduction u/s. 54B of the Act have been claimed, the land at survey no.60/10 was purchased before 16.12.2010. i.e. before the date of transfer of capital asset (c) For claiming deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, the investment in land should have been made within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 2015. The assessment order in this case was passed without making proper inquiries or verification with regard to allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. 14. In a nutshell, the AO had allowed the deduction u/s. 54B of the Act incorrectly as the investment in the lands were made before the date of transfer of the capital asset. In view of the above discussed facts, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.10.2013 for the A. . 2011-12 is held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. By virtue of powers vested in me u/s. 263 of the IT Act, I cancel the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.10.2013 and direct the Assessing Officer make a fresh assessment as per law. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the Assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another: 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the CIT ) is without jurisdiction and bad in law as also on facts. 3. The learned CIT erred on facts as also in law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
