TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carry out proper investigation on the following issues (as extracted by the Commissioner in his order u/s 263): "(i) The assessee had made investment in purchase of land to the tune of Rs. 43,11,250/- during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2002-03. (ii) The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 16,10,500/-. A perusal of the assessment record reveals that the assessee had entered into an agreement with Smt. Kailashwati on 14.12.2001 for purchase of land measuring 9 kanals situated in village Manimajra, Chandigarh. The purchase price was fixed as per the agreement at Rs. 72,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of finalization i.e. on the bargain date which was fixed on or before 30.12.2002. The sale deed in respect of the land showed that the assessee had paid a sale consideration of Rs. 2,62,500/- which was adjusted against the earnest money of Rs. 4,00,000/-. (iii) As per agreement to sell dated 14.12.2001 the sale price of 9 kanals of land was fixed at Rs. 72,00,000/- and the actual price of 2 kanal 2 marla land worked out to Rs. 16,80,000/- instead of Rs. 2,62,500/- shown in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Reference CIT v. M/s Distillers Co. Ltd. (SC-TIOL-49-ITC) dated 5.4.2007 (copy of order enclosed). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that u/s 263(2) - Clock of limitation starts ticking from the date of assessment order and not from reassessment order. In the light of the circumstances explained above the present proceedings are not called for and so may kindly be vacated." 5. Ld. Commissioner, after examining the submissions that the agreement to sell has clearly stated that 9 kanals of land was to be purchased for a sum of Rs. 72.00 lakhs giving an average rate of Rs. 8.00 lakhs per kanal. Therefore, for purchasing 2 kanals the assessee was required to spend Rs. 16,80,000/-and since the Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiry in this respect, therefore, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He also observed that case laws cited by the assessee regarding limitation is not relevant because the same was not for reassessment. In the light of these observations he set aside the assessment order of the Assessing Officer which was passed by Assessing Officer on 13.12.2009 u/s 143(3) and directed to make fresh assessment after proper investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed the return of income for A.Y 2002-03 on 20.12.2002 at the total income of Rs. 89,429/- and agricultural income at Rs. 3,20,000/-. This office has received the TEP from the O/O Commissioner-II, Chandigarh and the O/O Director of Income-tax (Investment) Panchkula enclosing therein a list of transactions entered into by the assessee (alongwith his brother Shri Kulwinder Singh) during the F.Y 2001-02 relevant to A.Y 2002-03. The above said list is further supported by the documentary evidences in the form of agreement to s ell and sale deeds. From the perusal of the above said records and documents, it has transpired that the assessee has not declared these transactions in his return of income for A.Y 2002-03 and as such the undersigned has reasons to believe that the transactions whose details are enumerated below have escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is required to be issued. Necessary approval as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been obtained from the Addl Commissioner of Income -tax-V, Chandigarh and has been taken on record. S. No. Property Purchased Date of Purchase Amount Remarks 1 Agricultural lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued today i.e. 26.3.2009." 10. From the above it is clear that revenue was in possession of information that the assessee had purchased various lands which were not reflected in the return. Once the issue was reopened to investigate the purchase of various lands then the Assessing Officer was duty bound to make enquiries to examine the purchase of these land as well as the sources for the same. The Assessing Officer has simply issued notice u/s 142(1) and 143(2) dated 2.12.2009 which is standard for format of the notice. The Assessing Officer never bothered to call for copies of various agreements of sale. On a specific query of the Bench the ld. counsel of the assessee had admitted that these agreement were neither called for by the Assessing Officer nor furnished by the Assessing Officer. In fact these agreements were not furnished by the Commissioner or even before us. The Assessing Officer has proceed to make assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 merely on the basis of statement of affairs and made addition in respect of amounts stated in the statement of affairs which could not be proved. This clearly shows that the Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they were available with Ld. Commissioner-II, Chandigarh from whom information was received. Since the Assessing Officer has not even mentioned anything about such agreements, it is clear that they were not examined at all. Therefore, the assessment order has been definitely passed without proper enquiries and the Ld. Commissioner had rightly held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. As far as decision cited by the ld. counsel of the assessee is concerned in that case the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer had assessed the investment made by the assessee in the house property on substantive basis without making any enquiry as to whether the investment in the house property could be made from the known sources of income of the assessee. In the notice the issued, ld. Commissioner recorded that the Assessing Officer had accepted an addition in house property at Rs. 7.02 lakhs without holding any enquiry. It was further mentioned that from the report of CBI, ACB Gauhati that according to CBI investment made in the aforesaid house property was made by one Shri Moti Lal Datta son-in-law of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exonerated the son-in-law of the petitioner from any liability on account of the house property in question by holding the same to be belonging to the petitioner. The findings recorded by the ld. Special Judge in this regard cannot be brushed aside by the Revenue. In such circumstances, I am of the view that any de novo proceedings at this stage would be futile and may turn into a weapon of harassment against the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the view that after recording the interference made with the impugned order dated Nov 1, 1996, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, N.E. Region, Shillong, this court should proceed to direct the Revenue to treat the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1992-93 made by order dated May 16,1994, to be complete and final." 13. The highlighted portion of the above clearly shows that the Court has itself very clearly stated that ordinarily in the normal course, ld. Commissioner was entitled to re-do revisionary exercise if he so desires. The Court has given peculiar circumstances because of which the order passed u/s 263 was quashed. This clearly shows that this kind of extra jurisdiction can be exercised only ....