TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived from DIT(I & CI), Rajasthan that the assessee has sold certain immovable property, notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and in compliance, the assessee submitted that the return filed u/s 139 on 25.07.2008 may be accepted in due compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notices U/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and assessment was completed U/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 29.02.2016. In the assessment so completed, while computing the income under the head "long term capital gains", the Assessing Officer held that only plot of land was sold by the assessee and no constructed house was sold, hence, cost of construction claimed to be incurred in F.Y. 1990-1991 and deduction U/s 54 of the Act as claimed by the assessee were denied. Against the said findings, the assessee moved an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer and against the order of ld CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 3. In Ground no. 1, the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Assessing officer. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that though the validity of notice u/s 148 was not specifical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ole process of assessment has been vitiated and whole proceedings are liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. 7. It was further submitted that in the reasons recorded by the ld. AO, he has stated about sale of a property by the appellant which was valued by the registering authority for Rs. 11,14,712 but neither could identify any such document executed by the appellant nor any such document was brought before the appellant and even same has not been discussed in the assessment order also meaning thereby that the ld. AO did not have any piece of paper evidencing such deal nor he tried to obtain the same during assessment proceedings and hence he merely acted on the piece of information without examining authenticity of the same and hence assumption of jurisdiction by ld. AO is illegal. 8. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the ld AR also placed reliance on the following decisions: a. Smt. Kanta Chaudhary v/s ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (ITA No. 878/JP/2018 vide order dated 06.12.2018) b. Narain Dutt Sharma v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 6 (1), Jaipur (ITA NO. 203/2017 vide order dated 07.02.2018) 9. It was further submitted that the ld. AO recorded the reasons for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the ld AR regarding issuing of notice u/s 148 in the wrong name, it was submitted that it was merely a typographical error though other particulars such as name of assessee's father and assessee's address were correct and subsequent notices as admitted by the assessee have been issued in his name only and thus, the mistake has been rectified during the course of assessment proceedings itself and the order thereafter has been issued in the name of the assessee only. It was accordingly submitted that for such technical breach in terms of name of the assessee being mentioned as Shailendra Kumar Chaturvedi instead of Shailesh Kumar Chaturvedi, the notice cannot be held as invalid in the eyes of law. 14. It was further submitted that it was not a case of borrowed satisfaction as the Assessing officer was having credible piece of information received from the office of DIT (I&CI), Rajasthan and given that the assessee had not filed any return of income, it was a clear case of escapement of income and basis which the matter was reopened and notice was issued under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that from perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is amply cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer U/s 147 of the Act. It has been contended that firstly, the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer does not satisfy the requisite conditions for assumption of jurisdiction U/s 147 of the Act and secondly, the correct jurisdiction over the assessee lies with ITO Ward-6(4), Jaipur and not with ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur who has issued notice U/s 148 of the Act. We therefore, find that the ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing officer on both these counts is a legal ground and even though the same has not be taken before the ld. CIT(A), the same can be taken for the first time before the Tribunal. Hence, the ground so taken by the Assessing Officer is hereby admitted for adjudication. 16. It is settled legal proposition that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for assumption of jurisdiction U/s 147 of the Act should be discernable from the reasons so recorded and the reasons alone should be considered for determining whether the Assessing Officer is in possession of the material/information basis which he has formed the reasonable belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the impugned assessment year. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered on 27.08.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- and for the purpose of Stamp Duty purposes, the same has been valued by the Sub-Registrar Stamp Duty at Rs. 5,57,355/-. Therefore, the information so received by the Assessing Officer from Director of Income tax (I& CI) as so stated in the reasons is factual correct that the assessee has sold plot no. 380B during the year under consideration and therefore, there is a transaction of sale of an immoveable property. At the same time, it is also noted that the said plot of land has been sold for Rs. 6,00,000/- and valued by the Sub-registrar stamps at Rs. 5,57,355/-as against Nil sale consideration and stamp duty value of Rs. 11,14,712/- so stated in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and therefore, to this extent, there is a factual inaccuracy which probably might have influenced the Assessing officer in arriving at the quantum of income escaping assessment. However, the fact of the matter is that there is information in possession of the Assessing officer that there is a transaction of sale of property by the assessee during the year under consideration and the same is thus a tangible piece of information avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 25,00,000/ and after claiming deduction for cost of acquisition and improvement, has computed long term capital gains of Rs. 13,39,612/- and has claimed exemption of equivalent amount on account of fresh investment. The said disclosure matches with the transactions and the full value of consideration (including the impugned transaction which is subject matter of 148 notice) which has been finally brought to tax by the Assessing officer and thus, shows that the impugned transaction which is subject matter of 148 notice was duly reflected and offered to tax in the original return so filed by the assessee and therefore, on this count as well, there is no escapement of income in respect of impugned transaction. Therefore, in our considered view, such action on the part of the Assessing Officer for assumption of jurisdiction U/s 147 cannot be accepted and the notice under section 148 is thus set-aside. We find the similar finding has been given by the Coordinate Bench in case of Smt. Kanta Chaudhary vs. ITO (supra) and the relevant finding in para 5 reads as under:- "5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the reasons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur who has issued notice U/s 148 of the Act and therefore, even on this ground also, the instant proceedings are bad in law. We are however not inclined to agree to the ld AR in this regard and we rather agree with the contentions of the ld DR that there was ample opportunity available with the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction by ITO Ward 2(2) and once the assessee has participated in the reassessment proceedings and has not raised any such objections before the completion of the reassessment proceedings, the assessee cannot be allowed to raise this objection at this stage of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. 20. At the same time, a related question that arises for consideration is that once ITO Ward 2(2) was ceased of the information during the course of impugned proceedings that the assessee had already filed his return of income on 25.07.2008 with ITO Ward 6(4) and the PAN of the assessee lies within the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 6(4), whether ITO Ward 2(2) was well within his rights and jurisdiction to proceed ahead with the proceedings and pass the impugned order in absence of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AO reached at this conclusion after observing that in the sale deed, the assessee had mentioned that he had sold only the piece of land and there is no mention about the sale of superstructure also. The fact that the assessee had sold residential building however stands proved with the following evidences:- a) Affidavit of the Tenant: In this affidavit, one Shri Narain Singh has stated that he used to reside in house situated at plot no. 380, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur during the period from Feb., 2005 to Dec., 2006 and two rooms, kitchen, Lat Bathrooms and Pakka Floor was there on this land. The said Shri Narain Singh has also given his Aadhar Card also to prove his identity. This document clearly proves that a house was available on this piece of land. b) Certificate issued by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd: In this certificate, the JVVNL has certified that a 3 KW connection was given by it on this plot which cannot be given on vacant piece of land and also certified that in absence of any construction on a land, no permanent connection could be given which was provided on this land. This document also proves that this land had constru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial house, therefore, the AO was justified in denying the benefit u/s 54 of the Act. Considering above, the appeal is dismissed." The ld DR accordingly supported the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that no interference is called for and the same may be confirmed. 26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We refer to the findings of the AO which reads as under:- "Perusal of sale deeds of assessee it is clear that the assessee has sold plots and not constructed house. This fact is clearly mentioned in the sale deeds as under- However in reply filed the assessee has repeatedly mentioned that he has sold constructed house. In his support he has furnished some copies of electricity bills and water bills. If the assessee has sold constructed house then for what reason the same was not mentioned in sale deeds and only boundary wall was mentioned. Either the assessee has submitted wrong facts at the stage of assessment proceedings or he had misled the Sub-registrar to evade stamp duties,. If the registered deed had executed of constructed house then the sale consideration will also come on higher side for taxation purposes....