9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly observed that the Ld. AO has not brought anything on record to show that the land in question was transferred in the AY under consideration. Hence, no any substance in the appeal preferred by revenue and this ground is liable to be dismissed.
Revenue appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be said that the Ld. AO has not applied his mind because at the stage of recording the reason, the AO not supposed to scrutinize the issue deeper. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee relied upon letter dated 28.03.2014 and pro-forma of sanction order signed by Additional CIT. But in pro-forma prescribed by the Board for recording approval, the Ld. Addl. CIT has clearly noticed in his own handwriting that "on the basis of reasons recorded in Annexures, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice U/s 148". So, it is crystal clear that authority has also applied his mind to the material placed before him and noted his satisfaction for issue of notice under relevant provision i.e. section 148 of the Act, and in such circumstances the impugned approval cannot be treated as non- mechanical in nature. 7. The Ld. AR in this regard emphasized and submitted that the impugned reasons recorded in instant case do not give valid jurisdiction to reopen the case because competent authority, who is gave the sanction u/s 151(2) acted without application of mind, which is evident from letter dated 28.03.2014 and pro-forma of sanction. The Ld. AR also submitted that the prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val was accorded on 29.03.2014 itself. So, it is crystal clear that the same day reasons were recorded and forwarded by the Ld. AO and same day approval was granted, and approving authority not mentioned under what thought process and on which specific point, he reaches the conclusion. 10. During the hearing, the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. ACIT & Anr., W.P.(C) 999/2022 & CM Appl. 2842/2022, has held as under: "23.1 The following observations made by the Division Bench of this court in Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(4) (2021) 435 ITR 642, being pertinent, are set forth hereafter: "35. This apart, what is even more disconcerting is the fact that respondent no.2, who accorded sanction for triggering the process under Section 147 of the Act, simply rubber-stamped the reasons furnished by respondent no.1 for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 36. The provisions of Section 151(1) of the Act required respondent no.2 to satisfy himself as to whether it was a fit case in which sanction should be accorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and, thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where literally a mere stamp is affixed. It is signed by a Under Secretary underneath a stamped Yes against the column which queried as to whether the approval of the Board had been taken. Rubber stamping of underlying material is hardly a process which can get the imprimatur of this Court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the ITO was to be agreed upon, the least, which is expected, is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf setting out brief reasons. Reasons are the link between the material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. Our opinion is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. M.L. Capoor and Ors. MANU/SC/0405/1973: AIR 1974 SC 87 wherein it was observed as under: 27. We find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to transfer of land to joint venture M/s Achievers Sudarshan Associates and the said Agreement was never held to be inoperative. 13. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 14. The Ld. AO while completing assessment proceedings held that the land was transferred through an arrangement / agreement made between M/s Sudershan Buildtech P. Ltd. and of M/s Achivers Builders P. Ltd. through which they have made a partnership firm and made arrangement to develop the above said land in group housing, flats and other purposes of the partnership firm and to avoid tax implications the assessee has tried to give it colour that it has not transferred any land in the year under consideration. 15. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in question, for deciding the appeal of the assessee was before the Ld. CIT(A) that as to whether the land own by assessee company was sold during the assessment year under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A), after hearing both the parties, passed the order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as under: "On careful examination of the Partnership Deed and the MOU dated 2.5.2006. being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vations made by the AO in the reasons recorded and has referred to the evidences relied upon provided by the AO to the appellant assessee which also include Supplement Memorandum of Settlement dated 28th February 2013 between Four individuals, assessee company and M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited This Supplement Memorandum of Settlement also refers to the MOU dated 2.4.2008, Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated 4.4.2008, and Collaboration Agreement dated 18.6.2008, Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.7.2011 This document speaks about 30.268 acres falling in Revenue Estate of Villages Palwali, Baselwa and Kheri Kalan. Tehsil and District Faridabad, partitioned for all practical purposes and the first party i e four individuals and assessee company got 13.343 acres of land and second party ie M/s RPS Infrastructure Limited got land admeasuring 16.925 acres out of total land admeasuring 30.268 Acres for which Town and Planning Department of Haryana Government granted License No. 104 of 2008 on 14.6.2008 in the name of four individuals and the assessee company which goes to prove that even as on 14.6.2008. the land was in the name of the assessee company and these persons This Supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acre only but it does not confirm that the land was transferred and the possession was given to any third party. In the impugned assessment order, the AO referred to MOU dated 25th day of July, 2008 and has relied on the para which shows that the said land was brought into the stocks of the partnership firm and for all intents and purposes the partnership firm M/s Achievers Sudershan Associates became the owner of the above said land have considered this observation made by the AO and also the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of property Act, and the provisions of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act relating to the transfer of capital asset but do not find any force in the observations made by the AO for the reasons that merely mentioning in the MOU that the said land was brought in to the stock of the partnership firm does not transfer the title of the land to the partnership firm in the absence of any registered document Section 2(47) of the Act says for transfer in relation to a capital asset, includes - sales. exchange or relinquishment of the asset of the extinguishment of any rights therein However, nether there is any sale, nor any exchange, nor any relinquishmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y under consideration, I am of the opinion that the addition made by the Ld AO for an amount of Rs 15.25 Crores on account of sale consideration of land deserves to be deleted I order accordingly Hence, ground Nos 4 & 5 of appeal are allowed." 16. From bare perusal of record, it reveals that the for the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer in the case of Shri. Chidda Singh, Sh. Kiran Pal Singh, Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, observed on the basis of the report received from concern Tahsildar, Faridabad that land in question was not transferred / sold by the assessee and certificate that the land was in possession was Sh. Chidda Singh/ Sh. Kiran Pal Singh up to 31st March, 2012 and also specific that no land was sold / transferred by the assessee to M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd., during the Financial Year 2006-07. Keeping in view the above facts, the concern Assessing Officer dropped the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act. 17. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Babubhai Shantilal Solanki vs. the Income Tax Officer, ITA No. - 1893/Ahd/2019. The relevant part of this order is reproduced as under: "5. We have give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
