TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng proper service of notice under section 148 without looking in to the record and without calling for any evidence of service form the AO on whom the burden of service lies at the first instance by passing almost non speaking order in just 8 words "There is no evidence of non-service of notice". It is prayed that in the absence of proper service of notice u/s 148, the assessment proceedings may kindly be quashed abinitio. 2 The ld. CIT (A) has also erred in fact and in law by upholding the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on merits without giving just a cursory look to the reasons recorded and also quoted in the assessment as well as appellate order. The action of the CIT (A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital gain. 5 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. It is prayed that exemption as claimed u/s 54F during appellate proceedings may be allowed." 2. From the above grounds of appeal and the attending facts of the case, it reveals that the assessee has challenged the impugned order on validity of notice issued u/s. 148 and assessment of capital gains in the hands of assessee assuming the land in question as capital asset. Challenge is also made with respect to deduction u/s. 54F of the IT Act. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee, inter alia, submitted at the outset that the core issue involved in this appeal regarding validity of reo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f issuance and service of proper notice u/s 148 and also that when the agricultural land was sold and long term capital gains arises from such transfer, the capital gains are exempt being not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) (b) of the Act.. However, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on these two counts. 4. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal challenging the validity of the notices issued u/s 148 stating that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the ground relevant to this issue by passing a non speaking order and also without giving even a cursory look at the reasons recorded and also quoted in the assessment order. It is further contended by the assessee that the learned CIT(A) erred in assuming that the land in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A). 6. For the sake of clarity, we deem it just and proper to extract Para 3.1 of the order of the learned CIT(A) to the extent it is relevant: "Brief facts as recorded in the assessment order on this issue are as under:- "On the basis of information available in the case of M/s Mool Chand HUF, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act'1961 was issued to the appellant for A.Y. 2006-07 on 26.03.2013 with prior approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Rewari Range, Rewari after recording the reasons. The extract of the reasons is as follows: "On the basis of AIR information available in the case of M/s Mool Chand HUF that said HUF had sold a land at Dharuhera for a consideration of Rs. 8,89,12,500/- in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is interesting to note that the reasons supplied under the RTI Act are not identical to the one that were extracted by the learned CIT(A) in his order. The relevant portion of the reasons furnished under RTI Act read as follows: "As per AIR information available, M/s Mool Chand HUF had sold a land at Dharuhera for a consideration of Rs. 8,89,12,500/-. The land in question was a capital assets, therefore, notice us/ 148 for AY 2006-07 was issued to M/s Mool Chand HUF. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Mool Chand HUF, Smt. Shanti Devi, wife and Ajit Singh-sunil son and Smt. Savita-Shashi Bala daughter of late Mool Chand filed a reply stating therein that M/s Mool Chand HUF was not in existence in pas....