TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Rs. 2,27,890/-. AO received information that the assessee, along with 4 others, had sold an immovable property admeasuring 243 sq.yards at Gadwal Compound, Nampally, Hyderabad vide Document No.464/2009, dated 19.02.2009 during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y 2009-10 for a consideration of Rs. 58,00,000/- which was registered in SRO, Hyderabad. It was also learnt that the market value of the property is Rs. 1,14,09,000/- as per Sub-Registrar on which stamp duty and the registration charges were paid. The AO observed that as per the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act, the SRO value should have been adopted while computing the capital gain. Therefore, observing that the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Long Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he address available in the sale deed. Therefore, he did not accept the claim of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to consider the computation of capital gains by the assessee at Rs. 40,71,460/- and the claim of deduction of Rs. 34,30,000/- u/s 54F and also deduction of Rs. 4,30,000/- u/s 54EC of the Act. The AO observed that as per section 50C of the Act, the market value of the property is Rs. 1,14,09,000 and therefore, the long term capital gain should be at Rs. 96,80,460/- and after allowing deduction u/s 54F and 54EC, he worked out the long term capital gain at Rs. 62,50,460/- and brought it to tax. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so passed is without jurisdiction as reassessment proceedings were initiated by non jurisdictional Officer and Notice u/s 148 was not served. 2) That the address of Appellant falls in jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer Ward 11 (2) and accordingly the Appellant filed the Return of Income for assessment year 2009-10 with Income Tax Officer Ward 11 (2) and hence the initiation of reassessment proceedings by ITO Ward 5(3) who does not have jurisdiction over the Appellant, is bad in law. 3) That learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings by ITO Ward 5(3) on the ground that old address of Appellant falls in jurisdiction of ITO Ward 5(3) and change in address was not intimated by Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income was filed in response to the issue of Notice u/s 148 and in the circumstances the provisions of Section 143(3) are not at all applicable and therefore the Order passed u/s. 143(3) rws 147 is without jurisdiction. 9. That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in totally ignoring the case laws relied upon by Appellant in support of the contentions raised in Grounds of Appeal. 10) That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in not referring the valuation of the property to Valuation Officer in terms of Section 50C(2) despite claim by Appellant that value adopted for stamp duty exceed the fair market of the property and sale consideration received by Appellant is full value of consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the AO who issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act had no jurisdiction over the assessee, but had recorded the reasons for reopening and initiated the re-assessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 148, which has not been served on the assessee. Therefore, according to him, the re-assessment proceedings are invalid and have to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: a) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shirishbhai Hargovandas Sanjanwala vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 396 ITR 167 (Guj.) dated 19th July, 2016. b) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. Dy. CIT reported in (2016) 381 ITR 428 (Del.) dated 15th January, 2....