TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the value of the said property as per the SRO is Rs. 21,38,750/- registered with S.R.O, Tandur vide Document No 3998/2006. According to the AO, since the chargeable market value for the purpose of stamp valuation determined by the stamp valuation authorities was at Rs. 21,38,750/- on the documents mentioned above, the provisions of Section 50C of the Act is attracted and the assessee has to compute the Capital Gains on the market value of Rs. 21,38,750/- adopted for the stamp duty purposes. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the asst. year 2007-08 disclosing the above transactions and failed to offer the corresponding Capital gains on transfer of the above mentioned immovable property. In view of the above and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Return of Income nor furnished the details called for in response to the above notice on the said date. After issue of several notices, a final notice was issued on 19/01/2015 requesting to furnish the information on or before 27.01.2015 failing which it will be construed that the assessee has no explanation to offer and assessment will be completed based on information available on record. However, there was no response from the assessee for the above said notice. 2.2 Subsequently, the assessee has filed a return of income on 20.03.2015 showing the capital gain of Rs. 2,19,720/-. As verified from the Return of income filed, the assessee has shown sale proceeds on property situated at S. No 134 at Saipur, Tandur at Rs. 8,55,500/-, where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1- The Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dt.25-11-2016, is erroneous in law and is against the facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case. 2. The C.I.T. (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the order of the assessing officer in spite of the plea of the assessee that the Notice under Section 148 issued to the assessee on 12-03-2014 is invalid in law, as it was stated by the assessing officer himself in page-2 of the assessment order that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax has accorded permission for re- opening the case on 14-03-2014. 3. The C.I.T. (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the order of the assessing officer in spite of the plea o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee submitted and contested that reopening of the assessment is bad in law and submitted that the AO has issued the notice u/s 148 only on 12/03/2014, which is beyond 4 years. According to him, ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the reopening of assessment as proper without accepting the plea of the assessee that the procedure for sanction to the notice is not proper as the sanctioning authority was CIT but it was sanctioned by ACIT. Further, he submitted that the assessment was completed without issuance of any notice u/s 143(2), without any jurisdiction. He submitted that there are ample judicial precedents, which confirms that without issuance of notice u/s 143(2), there is no jurisdiction to complete the assessment. 6.1 Further, ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... chose to delay the submission of return of income. 8.1 The assessee has relied on the following cases: 1. ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Amarchand Sharma and Udani, [2014] 364 ITR 203 (A.P.) 3. CIT Vs. Cebon India Ltd., [2010] 229 CTR 188 (P&H) 4. CIT Vs. Deep Baruah [2010] 329 ITR 362 (Gau.) 5. CIT Vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd., 2011 330 ITR 43 (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Pawan Gupta [2009] 318 ITR 322. (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.) 8. Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director General of Income-tax & others [2012] 341 ITR 247 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. H. Gouthamchand, 2012] 204 Taxman 86 (Kar.) 10. CIT Vs. Adarsh Travel Bus Service, [2012] 204 Taxman 114 (Del.) 11. Manish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 2, it was submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 was invalid as the same was sanctioned by Addl. CIT, not by CIT. In this regard, we reproduce section 151 prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2015, which reads as under: "151. Sanction for issue of notice (1) In a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 [by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner], unless the [Joint] Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice]: Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the ....