TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29.12.2009 which was stated to be served on the assessee on 30.12.2009 through the wife of the assessee. Thereafter the AO also issued notice under section 142(1) but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 on 20th December, 2010 at long term capital gain of Rs. 49,95,330/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and also disputed the service of notice under section 148. The ld. CIT (A) held that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 was served upon the assessee and, therefore, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the alleged service claimed by the department is not a valid service of notice under section 148. He has submitted that the name of wife of the assessee is Smt. Bhura Bai whereas the signature on the said notice was taken of Smt. Pushpa Bai. The assessee has explained before the ld. CIT (A) that there is no person by the name of Smt. Pushpa Bai in the family of the assessee and, therefore, there is no service of notice under section 148 of the IT Act and consequently the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. ITO & Others 326 ITR 77 (Mad.) CIT vs. Chetan Gupta 382 ITR 613 (Del.) Km. Teena Gupta vs. CIT 400 ITR 376 (All.) Thus the ld. A/R has contended that there is no valid service of notice under section 148 on the assessee and therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has disputed the service of notice whereas the ld. CIT (A) has discussed this issue by analyzing the relevant record and it was found that the notices issued under section 142(1) were also received by the family members of the assessee. However, the assessee has not disputed the service of those notices. The assessee is non-cooperative right from the very beginning as despite various opportunities and notices issued by the AO, there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has challenged the service of notice to defeat the assessment proceedings and to avoid the due tax. The ld. D/R has filed the record of Despatch Register as well as copies of the notices issued by the AO which were served upon the family members of the assessee. The ld. D/R has further pointed out that the notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F EXAMINATION The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined. On perusal of the documents of this case, it is observed that writings/signature marked A1 (Exhibit-A1) and A2 (Exhibit-A2) have been supplied for comparison/Examination. It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship or otherwise on the writings/signatures marked A1 and A2, for the manifest reason that writing features of the writings/signature marked A1 are not comparable with the writing features of the writings/signature marked A2. It deserves to mention here that the principle of handwriting identification is - 'like is compared with like'. Therefore, in this connection it is informed that the questioned documents (all originals) containing writings/signatures may be got encircled with pencil and marked as Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 ...... For comparison, sufficient number of specimen writings/signatures may be got obtained from the person (s) concerned containing similar letters and their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings/signatures and encircled with pencil and marked as S1, S2, S3 .... Similarly, sufficient admitted genuine writin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andson of the assessee with their mobile numbers and the assessee has not disputed those particulars. Even if the notices were received by the minor family members of the assessee and if the same were brought to the knowledge of the assessee, it will be a proper service. Only when the notice received by the minor and not brought to the knowledge of the assessee then the same will not be treated as proper service. There is no quarrel on the point that the issuance of notice under section 148 and valid service of the same on the assessee is a mandatory pre condition for reassessment made under section 147 of the Act. The AO has given the details of various notices issued to the assessee at page 2 of the impugned order as under :- Sr. No. Notice/Letter dated Mode of service Compliance 1. 29.12.2009 Notice u/s 148 By hand Non-compliance 2. 13.07.2010 Notice u/s 142(1) By hand to Anju (Grand daughter) Non-compliance 3. 03.09.2010 By hand to Dinesh (Grand son) Non-compliance 4. 11.10.2010 By hand to Dinesh (Grand son) Non-compliance 5.1. Apart from these details, the final notice dated 01.12.2010 was served on the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the A/R submitted that assessee is confined to bed and therefore, he cannot attend the proceeding. The assessee submitted that this happened because of brain hemorrhage in the month of January, 2012, however, before loosing his senses prior to brain attack, it was told by the appellant that no notice u/s 148 was served upon him. I have gone through the case record and it was seen that one letter dated 10.12.2010 was served upon assessee's wife and alongwith his thumb impression it was written (wife) Bhura Bai alias Pushpa Bai, this letter is placed as Annexure-A to this order. In view of the above, it is held that Smt. Bhura Bai & Smt. Pushpa Bai are one and the same person and assessee has taken a false plea with a view to obtain a wrong decision. It is also held that notice was rightly served on the wife of assessee (Smt. Bhura Bai alias Smt. Pushpa Bai). Subsequent notices u/s 142(1) were also received by other family members of the assessee. Now the question arises whether service of notice on wife of assessee can be treated as proper service or not. Service of notice is to be made as per section 282 of the I.T. Act. Section 282 provides th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly, we do not find any error or irregularity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. Ground No. 4 & 5 are regarding denial of exemption under section 54F and 54B of the Act. 6. Though there was no return of income filed by the assessee and also there is no appearance before the AO, however, the assessee made a claim of deduction under section 54F and 54B of the Act before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) called for a remand report from the AO and found that the assessee has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the investment was made for purchase of agricultural land and construction of house. Only some unregistered agreements were produced by the assessee wherein the payment in cash was claimed. 7. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the claim of deduction under section 54F was denied on the ground that the assessee has purchased the agricultural land of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of wife. Further, the assessee has also purchased agricultural land of Rs. 40,00,100/- and a house in the name of wife for Rs. 7,20,000/- and claimed deduction under section 54B and 54F of the IT Act. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement to sale. The assessee has failed to prove that he has acquired the new asset within the prescribed period after the sale of the existing asset. Further the purchase of agricultural land through agreement to sale dated 23rd September, 2009 clearly shows that the assessee has managed that agreement only a day before the expiry of the period. However, when there is no subsequent sale deed, then the unregistered agreement will not transfer any title to the assessee of the agricultural land. Accordingly we do not find any merit or substance in the claim of deduction under section 54B and 54F of the IT Act. The decisions relied upon by the assessee are not directly on the point and further after the amendment in the Transfer of Property Act as well as Registration Act with effect from 2001, the registration is a mandatory condition for applicability of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly the decisions relied upon by the ld. A/R will not help the case of the assessee when there is no title document transferring the ownership. Ground No. 6 is regarding applicability of section 50C of the IT Act. 10. Since the deduction itself is not allowable, therefore, thi....