TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied in confirming the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs paid to village elders in computing the capital gains". 2. In addition thereto, the assessee has also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: "The proceedings u/s 147, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are not valid and therefore, the assessment basing on such invalid proceedings deserves to be cancelled". 3. As the additional ground of appeal is against the validity of the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act and is a legal issue, we deem it fit and proper to admit the same and proceed to adjudicate the legal issue. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri K.A. Sai Prasad submitted that the assessee has filed her return of income with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 78 (Mum.) 5. The learned DR however, submitted that the Officer who had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the Officer who had subsequently issued notice u/s 143(2) are both under the same CIT and both were having concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, according to him, the notice issued by one of the Officer was sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. As regards the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the learned DR submitted that in these cases, 148 notice was issued by an authority, in one locality whereas the correct jurisdiction was with the AO in a different territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, according to him, these decisions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Officer. Thus, it is seen that both the Officers have concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee as far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned. It is not clear from the records whether the Income Tax Officer was aware of the quantum of income returned by the assessee as the return of income was filed with the DCIT. The copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment is not filed before us and therefore, we are not able to come to any conclusion as to whether the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of any information received by him or it is on the basis of the return of income filed by the assessee. If the return of income was not before the AO, it cannot be presumed that he was aware of the jurisdiction of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to him, all these expenditure is for transfer of the property and is to be allowed as expenditure in relation thereto. 9. The learned DR however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the undisputed facts are that the assessee's husband along with his brothers has sold the land to M/s. Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore and has gained LTCG therefrom. As regards the expenditure claimed by the assessee for getting the illegal occupants evicted from the land, the AO has accepted the payment to one of the occupants of the land, since he was produced before him. Therefore, it is clear that the land was not in peaceful possession....