TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the revenue's appeal by holding that reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law without appreciating the fact that the applicability or otherwise of provisions of section 50C was not examined at all by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2007 ?" 3. For the subject Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer had completed regular assessment on 26.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter on 11.3.2010 a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued seeking to reopen assessment for the subject Assessment Year 2005-06. Reasons in support of the notice dated 11.3.2010 read as under: " The assessee disclosed long term capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In appeal, CIT(A) found on facts that copy of sale deed was filed during the regular assessment proceedings and the Respondent had during the regular assessment proceedings disclosed long term capital gain on the sale of land at Thane. It is on the disclosure on the aforesaid facts that a view had been taken by the Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings. Thus, the CIT(A) by order dated 18.12.2012 held the notice dated 11.3.2010 was bad in law. Consequently, reassessment order dated 22.12.2010 passed under Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was annulled. 6 Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.12.2012 of the CIT(A), the Revenue car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to consider the provisions of Section 50C of the Act during the regular Assessment Proceedings but it proceeds on the basis that the Respondent had failed to furnish copy of sale deed of land. This is found to be factually incorrect both by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. Thus the submission on the part of the Revenue seems to be at variance with the reason recorded in support of the impuged notice. This is not permissible as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332. 9. The reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.L.A. Firm (Supra) in the present facts is not appropriate. In the above case the Assessing Officer completed regular assessment proceedings being ignorant that the issue stood....