TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is not agricultural land. (d) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in disallowing the cost of improvement claimed on the property sold amounting to Rs. 3,51,448/-. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a non-resident and is a practising Ophthalmologist. He filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31-03-2008 admitting the taxable income of Rs. 7,44,950/-. In the statement accompanying the return of income, the assessee declared long term capital gain of Rs. 15,25,378/- on sale of a residential property and claimed the same as exempt u/s 54 of the Act, as he had invested a sum of Rs. 42,09,750/- on purchase of another residential property. The assessee further declared short term capital gain of Rs. 24,16,120/- on sale of an agricultural land and claimed the same to be exempt. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment by issuing notice under sec. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s. 54(1) of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer also held that the short term capital gain earned on sale of land is also not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was found signed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also confirmed the fact of availability of the signature of the assessing officer on the original assessment order. Thus, it transpires that the Assessing Officer has inadvertently failed to sign the copy of the assessment order, which was served upon the assessee. 7. Now the question that arises for our consideration is whether the non-signing of the copy of assessment order would invalidate the original assessment order, when the original order was duly signed. The Ld A.R has placed strong reliance on the case law cited above to contend that the absence of signature in the copy of the assessment order would also invalidate the assessment. We have carefully gone through the case law relied upon by Ld A.R. In the case of Vijay Corporation (supra), the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal decided the issue by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kailasho Devi Burman (referred supra). However, in the case before the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal, the finding given by the Tribunal was that the assessing officer did not dispute the fact that the order of assessment was not signed, meani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts available to the assessee , the calculation of the net tax payable is a process which is mostly arithmetical but generally time-consuming. If, therefore, the Income-tax Officer first draws up an order assessing the total income and indicating the adjustments to be made, directs the office to compute the tax payable on that basis and then approves it, either immediately or some time later, no fault can be found with the process, though it is only when both the computation sheets are signed or initialled by the Income-tax Officer that the process described in sec. 143(3) will be complete". 9. In the instant case, the Ld A.R, after examination of the assessment record, has confirmed that the Assessing Officer has duly signed the original assessment order. Accordingly, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High court in the case of Sushil Chandra Ghose (supra), we may safely conclude that the statutory requirement has been duly complied with by the assessing officer. Further, it is pertinent to note that the "Notice of demand" served upon the assessee bore the signature of the assessing office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inding as under in paragraph 7 of the assessment order. "7. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the land was not an agricultural land and hence, cannot be excluded form the expression 'capital asset' as provided under sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of sec. 2 of the Income Tax Act. For such a finding, the following points have been cumulatively considered. (a) The land in question is located to highly developed area where the I.T. Park, Luxury Housing Projects and industries of nationally reputed buildings well-laid roads are located; (b) The land was transferred for non-agricultural purpose; (c) No agricultural operations were carried out for the last more than three decades; (d) The intention of the assessee in acquiring the land cannot be said to be for genuine agricultural purposes; the assessee is not an agriculturist; (e) The motive for purchasing the land was only to earn gains on fetching higher value; (f) There is no evidence to prove that any agricultural activities on a regular and organised way were carried out; (g) Physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of lands in the adjoining do not indicate that the land was ag....