TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal is as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54/54F of the Act. 3. The assessee is an individual. The assessee sold a vacant site at Banashankari (BSK)-III Stage on September 22, 2007 for a total consideration of Rs. 24 lakhs. The assessee purchased another vacant site on May 15, 2008 for a consideration of Rs. 11,62,000 at BSK-VI Stage. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on July 25, 2008 declaring income of Rs. 10,57,479. Under the head "long-term capital gain", the assessee declared an income of Rs. 10,08,112 which was computed by the assessee as follows : Long-term capital gains Date of transfer Septem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The construction is taken place with own supervision. The total cost of the construction is Rs. 24,750 (rupees twenty four thou sand seven hundred and fifty only)." 5. The return of income was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the intimation under section 143(1) dated March 5, 2000. However, on July 21, 2010 the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to file a return of income. This notice was served on the assessee on July 24, 2010. The assessee did not respond to this notice. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act on September 7, 2011 and October 24, 2011. Even to these notices, there was no response from the assessee. The Assessing Officer therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the sale proceeds received on sale of site was deposited in fixed deposit with the bank. The assessee also challenged the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings. 7. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, rejected all the contentions put forth by the assessee. According to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee ought to have furnished evidence to substantiate his claim and has failed to do so and therefore the action of the Assessing Officer had to be upheld. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also upheld the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also found that the assessee had claimed construction of compound wall and levelling of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s accepted under section 143(1) of the Act on March 5, 2010. Therefore, there is no question of 143(2) notice with reference to this return of income. 10. As far as section 148 proceedings are concerned, it commenced by issue of notice on July 21, 2010. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to this notice. Therefore, there is no question of issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in the proceedings under section 148 of the Act. 11. The additional grounds of appeal are accordingly rejected. 12. As far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee was that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been furnished and it was therefore necessar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the site purchased by the assessee. The question is as to, when the construction started. The date on which the construction is completed may not be very material in the light of decision of CIT v. Sambandam Udayakumar [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karn). The assessee has filed before us the letter which indicates construction activities having been carried out over the site purchased by the assessee within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the capital asset. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee should be afforded an opportunity to explain its stand with supporting evidence. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for fres....