TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the IA. C1T(A) has further erred in rejecting the aforesaid objection of assessee merely on the ground that this ground was not raised before AO and that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings, by completely ignoring the well established law that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and that the defect of lack of jurisdiction is a material one and not one which can be cured u/s 292 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 76,390/- made by Ld. AO by way of disallowance of brokerage expenses paid by assessee on the sale / purchase of land undertaken by assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 76,390/- deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the evidences submitted by assessee in support of the fact of payment of brokerage in the shape of confirmation and ID of the broker before the Ld. CIT(A) u/r 46A, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the impugned addition merely on the ground that the broker was not produced before the Ld. AO, by completely ignoring the fact that request was made before the Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 5.1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee in support of the source of deposits made by assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 10,44,216/- deserves to be deleted. 5.2 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that her action of upholding the addition of Rs. 10,44,216/- on account of bank deposits has resulted into double addition of same income, in view of the fact that the deposits have been made out of the sale proceeds of land, capital gain arising out of which has been claimed as exempt u/s 54F which has been disallowed wrongly. 6. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 2. Ground No.1 of the appeal is regarding validity of the reassessment order passed by the I.T.O., Ward 7(2), Jaipur without jurisdiction. The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary as well as agriculture. The assessee did not file any return of income U/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The A.O. issued a notice U/s 148 of the Act on 26/03/2013 and completed the reassessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the assessee is not permitted to raise this objection after completion of the assessment. 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. Since the assessee has not filed any return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act and further it is not a case of the assessee that he is regular assessed to tax under a different ITO, therefore, the notice issued by the I.T.O., Ward 7(2), Jaipur based on the assessee's particulars and address which is falling under his jurisdiction, cannot be disputed after completion of the assessment and particularly when the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. As per provisions of Section 124(3)(b) of the Act, no person is allowed to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer when he has not made any return of income after expiry of time allowed, inter alia, notice issued U/s 148 of the Act. Thus, the assessee did not object the jurisdiction of the A.O. as per the time period given U/s 124(3)(b) of the Act and even up to the date of the assessment order passed by the A.O. Since the jurisdiction of the assessee was not predetermined prior to notice issued U/s 148 of the Act as the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hand, the ld DR has submitted that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the claim of brokerage payment. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the claim and found that in absence of proof of brokerage payment produced before the A.O., the same cannot be allowed as accepted at this stage. She has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. When the transaction of sale of land is not in dispute then as per normal practice prevailing in such transactions, a brokerage at the rate of 2% is being paid. Though, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not file any evidence in support of the brokerage payment, however, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee produced confirmation alongwith ID proof of these two persons. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the ground that the proof was not produced before the A.O. Once the claim of the assessee is not found to be excessive and it is in accordance with the prevailing practice of brokerage @ 2% then the same cannot be denied. The sale and purchase of the immovable property transactions are generally carried out only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not clear whether the said lady was having the tractor and other labour force for doing the work. Thus, in absence of the details of the JCB and tractor for which the charges are paid by the assessee, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, when the assessee has failed to even furnish the relevant details regarding the particulars of the machinery and whether the lady who has executed the receipt was having those machineries, claim cannot be accepted. 14. Ground No. 4 of the appeal is regarding disallowance of cost of construction while allowing deduction U/s 54F of the Act. The assessee claimed the cost of construction of residential house of Rs. 23,22,500/- for the purpose of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. The A.O. has rejected the said claim on the ground that the valuation report filed by the assessee is in the name of one Smt. Sushma Bairwa as the single owner of the property. On appeal. The assessee filed rectified report of the valuer, however, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O. in rejecting the claim. 15. Before the Tribunal, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the original report was submitted during the assessment proceedings ....