TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erred in upholding the order of the A.O. on the issue of bringing to tax the capital gains in the hands of the appellant basing Factual on the un-accomplished Joint Development Agreement Ground entered with MI s. Sumathura Infracon Pvt Ltd on behalf of M/s. Vasavi Holdings. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred by not properly appreciating the factual position that the above original asset (Land) has been transferred by the assessee to M/s. Vasavi Holdings vide registered sale deed in Doc. No.8408 on 27.08.2014 by way of a sale, basing on the agreement of sale already entered on dt: 09.05.2013. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding the assessment order of the A.O in the matter of workup of the capital gain basing on cost of estimation of the flats allotted to the appellant and not basing on the market value of land transferred. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have directed the AO for adopting the value admitted or the market value of the land on sale of the above asset to M/s. Vasavi Holdings. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in not holding that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y 201415 and that as the assessee has already admitted capital gain in the relevant year 2015-16 on the sale of property to M/ s. Vasavi Holdings and that therefore, there can be no tax liability to the assessee in AY 2014-15. 15. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have well appreciated the legal precedence that no single element of income can be taxed on a person twice in two years and/ or on two taxable entities, simultaneously and that therefore having suffered capital gain tax in~-16, this cannot be taxed in 2014-15. 16. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have well appreciated that since entire sale consideration has been taxed in the AY 2014-15,the income of a and taxes paid for the A Y 2015-16 should be adjusted in the A Y 2014-15,as the same cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee. 17. The Ld CIT (A) ought to have held that Assessing officer erred in taxing the same income for two assessment years which tantamount to double taxation. 18. The Ld CIT (A) ought to have given directions to the assessing officer that assessee has admitted the capital gains for the Assessment year 2015-16 and the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect as well and therefore, relevant facts qua this legal issue are already on record not requiring any such factual verification. 6. Learned DR strongly objected to the assessee's foregoing reasons seeking to raise additional substantive ground Nos.20 to 26 on the issue of validity of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act at this belated stage. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival hearings qua assessee's petition dt.18.02.2021 seeking to raise the impugned additional grounds. It is not in dispute that he had canvassed the corresponding substantive ground Nos.7 to 9 before the CIT(A) to the very effect. It is thus clear that the impugned issue duly emanates form the lower appellate order not requiring any afresh factual examination. Coupled with this, learned co-ordinate bench decision in ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 M/s. Yes & Yes Hitech Premier Homes India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Dt.19.06.2017; after considering honourbale apex court judgment in NTPC Ltd Vs. CIT (supra), holds that we can very well entertain such a pure question of law provided the relevant facts are already on record so as to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee. We adop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purpose of making assessment. There is no dispute on this. But, it has not been said that the legal proceedings, validly initiated with reference to the original return, will get invalidated with the filing of the revised return of income. The enabling provision of sec. 139(5) provides an opportunity to the assessee to file revised return if the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the original return filed vi]«. 139(1). Having utilized such opportunity, the appellant cannot turn back and argue that the scrutiny assessment proceedings, initiated on the basis of the original return, do not survive. 7.4 Similarly, the other decisions in the cases of Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra and Machine Tool Corporation of India Limited, cited by the appellant, do not support the argument made by the appellant. Nowhere it is said that the validly initiated pending legal proceedings, on the basis of the original return, will die a natural death with the filing of the revised return. 7.5 As the scrutiny assessment proceedings were already pending (based on original return), there was no legal requirement to once again initiate the proceedings, separately....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plots. It was a submission that the AY 2012-13 was the first year of business of the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee had filed original return of income u/s.139(1) on 13.09.2012. There was a survey u/s.133A on 02.11.2012. The assessee had filed a revised return u/s.139(5) on 30.11.2012 disclosing an income of Rs. 5,67,630/-. It was a further submission that subsequently the second revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.02.2014 declaring Nil income. It was a submission that the AO had issued notice u/s.143(2) on 12.09.2013 in response to the return filed by the assessee on 30.11.2012. It was a submission that no notice u/s.143(2) was issued by the AO in respect of the revised return filed on 26.02.2014. It was a submission that once revised return was filed the earlier returns stands effaced. It was a submission that as no notice u/s.143(2) had been issued in respect of the return filed on 26.02.2014, the assessment was liable to be annulled. It was a submission that the assessment was getting time barred on 31.03.2015. It was a further submission that the factum of non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2) was also brought to the attention of the AO vide letter dat....