2001 (9) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d is Samvat Year 2028. The Income-tax Officer assessed the assessee under section 143(3), read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the reassessment order, the Income-tax Officer brought to tax long-term capital gains in relation to the compensation (including solatium) received, in the land acquisition proceedings, which admittedly the assessee had not disclosed in his return of income for the year under consideration. However, it is pertinent to note that the amount received by the assessee had been returned by the assessee in his return of income for the assessment year 1975-76. In fact, the Income-tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on this disclosure made by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so further held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in so far as he had failed to disclose the fact of the property being notified for the purposes of acquisition and thus becoming entitled to compensation. The assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying upon the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh [1981] 128 ITR 77 (MP); Addl. CIT v. J.K.D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi) and CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj), came to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in exercising his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that against the aforesaid decision of the Delhi ....