TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that reopening in this case was done by the Department on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO in respect of the property sold by the assessee with other co-owners. He has further relied upon the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'ITO Vs. Ms. Malika Mundrey Saini', ITA No. 967/Chd/2017 order dated 12.11.2017, in the case of co-owner of the property, who had sold his share in the property in question through the same transactions. The Tribunal while relying upon the decision in the case of another co-owner namely 'Ms.Rajinder Kaur Vs. ACIT' while upholding the order of the CIT(A) held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee had sold his 9/48th share in plot No.8, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh on 10.03.2008 for a sum of Rs. 22 crores. This property was allotted to the assessee on 04.09.1952. While computing long term capital gain, value of land was taken as on 09.04.1986 instead of 01.04.1981 as required as per provisions of the Act. The cost of land and building as on 01.04.1981 has not been adopted for the purpose of indexation. As per valuation report received from District Valuation Officer rate of land is considered at Rs. 511.38 per square yard as against Rs. 11,500/-taken by the assessee. Ao during assessment proceedings has given opportunity to the assessee by referring his case to the DVO. The assessee failed to cooperate with the DVO. Hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt. 3. The Id. DR submitted that though the CIT(A) has followed the order of the ITAT for this specific piece of land in the case of a co-owner, however, reliance is placed upon the assessment order. 4. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee in the facts of the present case, alongwith other co-owners had sold a property at Industrial Plot No. 8, Phase-I Industrial Area, Chandigarh for an amount of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- in which she had 1/6th share. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings also in the present case referred the matter to the DVO to ascertain the value of the asset as on 01.04.1981. Based upon the same, rate of land was taken at Rs. 511.38 per sq. yard and the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the re-opening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, Therefore, there is no need to consider other grounds of appeal on merit because they are left for academic discussion only. Resultantly all additions would be deleted." Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in the appeal of Coowner case, it is evident that reopening in such a situation, the notice u/s 148 and order of reassessment u/s 147 is liable to be quashed. Hence, the additional ground of appeal taken by the appellant is allowed. As the reassessment order has been quashed, the other grounds of appeal taken by the appellant become infructuous." 4.2 In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances in the absence of any ....