TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned ITO, Hanumangarh, lacked jurisdiction over the case and reassessment was commenced on the reasons based on wrong and vague facts. 2(i) That the learned CIT(A) is not justified on facts in adopting the fair market value of the land at Rs. 40 per sq. yd. as on 1st April, 1981, for determination of long-term capital gains during the year on sale of land, in small sized plots. 2(ii) That the learned CIT(A) is not justified in not considering the facts of size of the plots, location and also loss of land while dividing the same in small sized plots so as to fetch higher price, while arriving at the fair market value. 3. That the learned CIT(A) is not justified on facts and in law in restricting deduction to Rs. 81,212 out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subsequently came to the notice in the course of reassessment proceedings though they have escaped assessment. Therefore, he vehemently argued that the reopening of the assessment as well as the consequential order passed is liable to be quashed. Apart from this he argued the other issues on merits also. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the appeal of the assessee as prayed for. 3. Contrary to this the learned Departmental Representative has vehemently argued relying on the orders passed by the Departmental authorities and sought for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. On careful consideration of the material made available to the Tribunal and analyzing the same in the light of the rival submissions of both the parties as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt the AO has observed to the effect that on the basis of the above he has "reason to believe" that the income liable to tax has escaped tax and accordingly proposed issue of notice under s. 148 resulting in issue of notice under s. 148, dt. 15th Dec., 1999 to the assessee. In response to that the assessee has mentioned in reply dt. 12th Dec., 2000 stating that the return already filed on 29th Sept., 1999 will be treated as return filed in compliance to notice under s. 148. After hearing the assessee and considering the material, the AO has passed the assessment order without making any addition on account of "capital gains" that was alleged to have escaped assessment as mentioned in the notice under s. 148. But he made addition on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have escaped assessment. On the other hand the AO has made addition under the head "business income" and under the head "low household drawings". This act of the AO categorically shows that the AO has not made any addition on which he found "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment while initiating reopening proceedings but he made additions on other heads of "income of business" and "low household drawings". Such an act of the AO was found unsustainable by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh, wherein, it is categorically found that when once the AO has come to the conclusion that the income which he had entertained "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment, was found to....