https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340231 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340231 Reopening of assessment - undisclosed income on sale of land - one "sauda chittihi" seized during the search of the premises of one Shri Rajesh Vaghani - year of assessment - Held that:- It is required to be noted that as such the "sauda chittihi" upon which the reliance has been placed, the assessee is not the signatory. Even the concerned persons who signed and / or executed the said "sauda chittihi" were not even the owners of the land in question. It has also come on record that even the said "sauda chittihi" was not acted upon. Even thereafter, the assessee has sold the property to one Shri Popatbhai Kakadia, who is also not signatory to "sauda chittihi". There does not appear to be any other tangible material available with the AO to even prima facie show that the assessee had received any on money in cash and / or sale consideration of Rs. 8,92,77,830/-. Similarly on the basis of the amount mentioned in the "sauda chittihi" to which, neither assessee nor even the purchasers Shri Popatbhai Kakadia were signatory, the formation of the opinion by the AO that the assessee has sold the land at Rs. 8,92,77,830/-( Rs. 4601 per yard multiply by 14397.328 sq yard = Rs. 8,92,77,830/-) is only on surmises and conjectures and for which, there is no tangible material available with the AO. Thus AO has materially erred in forming the opinion that assessee had received the sale consideration of Rs. 8,92,77,830/-and thereby has wrongly considered the difference of Rs. 8,62,68,330/-as undisclosed income and thereby has materially erred in holding that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessable for AY 2009-10. There is no other tangible material with the AO, by which, it can prima facie be considered that Rs. 8,92,77,830/-has been received by the assesseesellers as sale consideration. The transfer of land has been taken place on 27.03.2008 when the sale deed has been executed. Therefore, it can be said that income has arisen in the AY 2008-09 and therefore, if at all any income has escaped assessment, the same can be said to be in AY 2008-09. By impugned notice, assessment for AY 2009-10 is sought to be reopened on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in 2009-10. When, it was pointed out to AO that the transfer had taken place on 27.03.2008 and therefore, it can be said that the income has arisen in the year 2008-09 and therefore, there cannot be any escapement of income in the year 2009-10. Even otherwise, as per the decision in the case of CIT vs. Hormasji Mancharji Vaid [2001 (6) TMI 58 - GUJARAT High Court] the capital gain under Section 45 of the Act arises in the year of execution of deed and not when the same was registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar. Under the circumstances also, the AO has materially erred in forming the opinion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year 2009-10.- Decided in favour of assessee Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530