AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been taken from CWP No.5282 of 2014 titled Sudhir Kapoor Vs. Income Tax Officer, Panipat & another, pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.02.2006 (Annexure P8), vide which, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal (for short, the 'CIT')-respondent No.2 rejected the objections raised in the revision petitions of the deceased assessee-Hira Lal Kapoor, predecessor-ininterest of the present petitioner. Challenge has also been raised to the order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P12), passed by respondent No.2, under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'), whereby it was held that the assessee could not point out any apparent mistake in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-assessee, vide objections dated 26.02.2004, through the present petitioner, filed objections wherein reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K.M.Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(7), New Delhi AIR 2002 SC 1715 on the ground that Section 149 of the Act prescribes a maximum period of 4 years for initiating reassessment proceedings and the quantum of tax had to be of more than Rs. 1 lac for that year. The assessment proceedings for the year 1996-97 to 1999-2000, was accordingly, sought to be dropped wherein the objection was taken that the assessment proceedings for the year 1996-97 and 1998-99 were time-barred. Similar objections were also sent on 27.02.2004. However, assessment order was passed on 19.03.2004 (Annexur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the compensation originally charged was not liable to capital gain tax which had been wrongly charged on the enhanced compensation and was liable to be exempted apart from raising other objections. 7. Respondent No.2 only dealt with the issue of LTCG and held that the assessee had been asked to produce the copy of the original notification issued by the State Government and therefore, it was not possible to verify the genuineness of the contention of the assessee and the same was rejected. However, on the issue of limitation, for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99, no reference was made whether the proceedings were time-barred, as had been raised before respondent No.1. 8. In the meantime, the assessee expired. Resultantly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....264. Accordingly, the decision under Section 264 was upheld, while being weighed down by the ground that the petition was filed 2 days before the limitation expired and therefore, the order under Section 264 was not liable to be interfered with. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, contended that once specific objections had been raised on the issue of jurisdiction for two assessment years and there was sufficient material before the Assessing Officer regarding the details of the land and when the award was passed, he was not justified in framing the assessment and imposing LTCG. Reference was, accordingly, made to the notification dated 06.01.1994 which had been attached in the written submissions before the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actor. Thus, the quantum of tax which has excaped assessment was to be kept in mind. Admittedly, the interest income was only Rs. 2,54,659/- which had, supposedly, escaped income and the return had not been filed. The income chargeable to tax on the said amount was, thus, relevant factor which was sought to be agitated but never dealt with by respondent No.1, solely on the ground that the return had not been filed. The objections having not been dealt with solely on the ground that return had not been filed inspite of being asked to, would, thus, violate the mandate of the Apex Court laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & others [2003] (259) ITR 19 (SC) wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer is bound....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble and which had escaped assessment would have to be seen at the time of issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act and not at the time of the conclusion of assessment proceedings and therefore, the reasoning arrived at by respondent No.2 is also without any justification. We are also of the view that there was sufficient material before respondent No.1 regarding the amount of compensation received by the deceased-assessee which had been supplied by the LAC vide letter dated 08.03.2004 and therefore, the respondent No.1 was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the deceased-assessee had not supplied the material facts. It was also the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to take into consideration the fact that the land fell within th....