AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....light of the fact that the assessee was well aware of the reasons for which the assessment was reopened. Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi, Bench 'A' in the case of Income tax Officer Vs. Smt. Gurivnder Kuar, reported in (2006) 102 ITD 189, has held that reopening of assessment for non communication of reasons would not be fatal when the assessee was aware of the reasons for which the reopening was made. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in quashing the order for non communication of reasons for reopening the assessment as the same is procedural irregularity which can be cured by remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Division Bench, in the case of M/s. Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, in W.A. No. 463 of 2017 has held that non compliance of procedure indicated in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., would not make the order void or non est. as, such a violation in the matter of procedure is only an irregularity which could be cured by remitting the matter to the authority. This order of Hon'ble High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. Supreme Court of India by dismissing the Special Leave petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ituated at Chinagadili village, Visakhapatnam vide sale deed No. 1252/2010, dated 03/04/2010 for a sale consideration of Rs. 45.00 lakhs. The AO has noted that the value of the property (SRO) was at Rs. 10,53,18,400/-. On verification of the records, it was noticed that the assessee has not disclosed this transaction in his return of income filed, though the assessee is liable for capital gains on the profit derived towards transfer of property, as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/sec. 148 and assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30/12/2016. In the assessment order the AO has observed that the assessee has sold this land to M/s. Visakha Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Sri Bikkina Satyanarayana for a sale consideration of Rs. 45.00 lakhs. The AO further noted that Sri Bikkina Satyanarayana has paid stamp duty of Rs. 30,92,975/- and difference of transfer duty of Rs. 20,16,370/- and deficit in registration fee of Rs. 5,04,095/- as fixed by the Collector under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule (7) of the A.P. Stamp Rules, 1975 read with A.P. Amendment Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO that the assessee has objected for adoption of SRO value and the AO referred the matter to the DVO. The AO without considering the report of the DVO applied section 50C which is not according to law. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee directed the AO to delete the addition. 5. On being aggrieved, Revenue carried the matter in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO, whereas ld. counsel for the assessee has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. 8. The assessee has sold 4.00 acres of land to M/s. Visakha Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 45.00 lakhs by sale deed No. 1252/2010, dated 03/04/2010. The AO by considering the revised SRO rates, adopted the sale value of the property at Rs. 10,53,18,400/- and assessee was asked to explain why sec. 50C should not be invoked. Before the AO, the assessee has submitted that the land purchased by him is a Government land and therefore to get rid of the land, he sold it for a cheap price and SRO value has no appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government Land. Ina regular contract for transfer of property the vendor is able to transfer the property to the buyer with all the attached rights of ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property. However, in the case of the appellant he could not own the land as the sale cum GPA was not finally registered when the appellant agreed to sell the land to Visakha Industrial Oases Private Limited as the Sub Registrar had information that the lands were Government Lands. The private parties have no right to transact with the Government Land and as such the appellant was not in a position to convey perfect title to Visakha Industrial Gases Private Limited. This is precisely the reason the DYO clearly stated that the land which is-the subject matter of the sale deed dt 3.4.2010 cannot be valued. 6.3.4. As per the provisions of S. 50C of the Act the SRO value is deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains on sale of an immovable property. However, when the appellant raises objection the matter needs to be referred to the DYO. The assessing officer has rightfully referred the matter to the DYO. However, when the DVO brought ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice that assessee sold the balance land of 1.50 acres to Ravi Harini and Vadde Manjula for a consideration of Rs. 16,70,000/- as against SRO value of Rs. 3,94,94,000/-. Therefore, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/sec. 148, dated 31/03/2018. It was submitted before the AO that he sold the land to the extent of 0.75 cents for a consideration of Rs. 8,35,000/- vide document No. 1254/2010 dated 08/04/2010. Further submitted that the remaining balance of land of 0.75 cents for a consideration of Rs. 8,35,000/- vide document No. 1253/2010, dated 08/04/2010. However, the AO has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and noted that the SRO value of the total property is of Rs. 3,94,94,400/-, therefore according to section 50C the sale consideration received by the assessee is of Rs. 3,94,94,400/-. Accordingly, the capital gain is taxed. 11. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that notice issued for reopening of assessment by the AO u/sec. 148, dated 31/03/2018 is beyond the period of 4 years and no reasons are communicated to the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO u/sec. 143 r.w.s. 147, dated 22/12/2018 is not in accordanc....