2017 (3) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ties below, which included the Tribunal, failed to appreciate that, in reopening the assessment, the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19, had not been followed. 3. This particular case relates to Assessment year 2008-09. The issue, which arose on merits was, whether or not, the subject land, which was sold, was, an agricultural land. The Assessee had claimed that the profit which he had earned on sale of land was not taxable, as the land sold was agricultural land. 4. The respondent, however, disagreed with the Assessee, and, accordingly, issued a communication dated 13.11.2010 calling upon him to explain as to why profit on sale....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the grounds of appeal, generally and, in particular, i.e., ground No.2 and 4. 10.1. Furthermore, counsel for the Assessee also referred to us to ground No.9 in the appeal preferred before us. 11. We examined the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11.1. In our view, the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer 259 ITR 19, would be binding on the Revenue in so far the procedure prescribed therein for reopening an assessment is concerned, even though, there is no specific reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19. In our opinion, ground No.2, raised in th....