AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd consolidated order. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 194 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee Ms. Padmini Chand and 202 days by the assessee Ms. Rajini Chand. Respective assessee's have filed applications for condonation of delay and have filed their affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay. The reasons stated by each of the assessee's are the same. In the affidavits, it is stated that the order of the CIT (A) was passed on 22.03.2016 and the due date for filing of the appeal before the ITAT was 20.05.2016 but the appeal was filed with a delay of 192 days and 202 days respectively. It is stated that they were not aware of the appellate proceedings and did not have the back records or the assessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 147 by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee's, on receipt of the notice, requested for grounds for reopening of the assessments, vide letters dated 21.04.2010. The assessee's were supplied with the reasons and in response to the said notice, assessee's filed their returns of income on 13.09.2010. It was also submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, the assessee's have received an amount of Rs. 25.00 lakhs each from their father towards their marriage expenses. Regarding the sale of the property at Hyderguda, they submitted that they have filed the partition suit against their father, Shri Mahesh Chand and meanwhile, they were approached by Shri B. Janardan Reddy, a family friend who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not convinced with the assessee's contentions. He observed that the assessee's have sold the property to Shri B. Janardan Reddy for a consideration of Rs. 14,22,000 as against the market value adopted by the SRO at Rs. 26,14,400. He observed that the registered sale deed executed by the assessee's is a valid document and therefore, the transfer is to be deemed to be complete u/s 2(47) of the I.T. Act. He therefore, computed the Long Term Capital Gain on the property and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and both the assessee's are in second appeal before us. In the case of Ms. Padmini Chand, the following grounds of appeals are raised: "1. The order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven though the reopening of the assessment is after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant A.Y, there is no mention of escapement of income. He drew our attention to section 149(1)(b) of the I.T. Act to argue that it is necessary to record a satisfaction that the income has escaped assessment to apply the necessary monetary limits for exercise jurisdiction by the respective Officers. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his arguments on the validity of the reassessment proceedings: i) Hon'ble ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in the case of Amar Nath Agrawal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [2015] 371 ITR 183 (All.) ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India 320 ITR 56....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence the LTCG has arisen to the respective assessee's. The learned DR objected to the learned Counsel for the assessee's argument against the reopening of the assessment stating that the assessee has never objected before the authorities below nor have they filed any application for admission of the additional grounds of appeal before the ITAT and hence the oral arguments by the learned Counsel for the assessee's should not be entertained. 11. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this being a legal ground, the assessee can raise it at any point of time and that a ground can also be raised orally. 12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the assessee's have never objecte....