TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case are that the department got information that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 19,00,500/- during the year under consideration in SBBJ Bank, Jaipur Branch, therefore, in order to verify the source of the same, notice U/s 148/147 of the Act were issued and after providing opportunity of hearing, assessment U/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was passed thereby making additions U/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld/sustained the additions made by the A.O. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the ITAT on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 6. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relate to challenging the notice issued U/s 147 of the Act by the A.O. and consequent assessment order dated 26/12/2017, therefore, we fit to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 7. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the assessee for sanction was granted without application of mind. Section l5l, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 8. In the case of Asmarlal Bajaj v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -19(1), Mumbai (2013) 37 taxmann.com 7 (Mumbai - Trib.) Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held as under:- "9. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are very much relevant in the instant case as in the present case also the Commissioner has simply mentioned "approved" to the report submitted by the concerned AO. In the light of the ratios/observations of the Hon'ble High. Court mentioned hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the reopening proceedings vis-a-vis provisions of Sec. 151 are bad in law and the assessment has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Tradelinks (P) Ltd. vs. Income tax Officer (2021) 202 DTR 13 (Del). Therefore, it was prayed by the ld AR that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessee by issuing notice U/s 148 of the Act were illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the settled principles of law, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. DR has supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nagar (2007), 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and submitted that due compliance of Section 151 of the Act was made by the CCIT and CIT has recorded his satisfaction and such satisfaction was on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. and not de hors it. It was further submitted that the satisfaction independent of reasons recorded by the A.O. is not envisaged as per provisions of Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, according to the ld. DR, the Revenue authorities if properly adhered to the principles of Section 151 of the Act, therefore, sanction granted by the competent authority is not illegal. 10. After having gone through the facts of the present case and after hearing the arguments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings is the reason to believe held by the A.O. Reasons for holding such belief are to be recorded in writing by the A.O. . The satisfaction by the Dy. Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, has to be only about the fitness of case to be subject to proceeding by reassessment U/s 148 only on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. Thus, in our view, although the assessee has cited the judgments of other Hon'ble High Courts but since as per judicial proprietory, we bound by the direct decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue in question. Therefore, while drawing strength from the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (supra), we are of the view that in the present case, the conditions U/s 151 of the Act for recording satisfaction by the Commissioner has been validly done as the said satisfaction was on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. and not de hors it and thus according to us, the satisfaction independent of reason recorded by the A.O. is not envisaged any way in Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em. The share of the assessee is only 5,20,000/- (20,80,000 X 'A). The capital gain in the hands of the assessee is therefore only on 5,20,000/- and that too after deduction of the cost of acquisition and " other allowable deductions. 16. That the Assessing Officer has treated the cash received and deposited in the bank by the assessee as unexplained investment of the assessee contrary to the provisions of section 50C. The DLC of the property has been taken to be Rs. 20,80,000/- (paper book page no. 19 and 23) and therefore the value of the property should be taken to be Rs. 20,80,000/-. Even the certificate given in the sale deed page no. 23 states the property to be of value 20,80,000/-. Both the authorities below have not considered this fact. 17. That thus, considering all the evidences to-gather viz. statements and affidavits of the co-owners, DLC value of the property, the addition of Rs. 12,22,000/- by treating the cash deposited as unexplained investment deserves to be deleted in view of the decision of Pappu Ram Saran V ITO, Ward -2, Kishangarh (ITA No. 1303/JP/2018) (copy enclosed) 18. That this Tribunal in the case of Pappu Ram Saran V ITO, Ward -2, Kishangarh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee was having 1/5th share in the land in question. The ld AR relied upon the documents by way of paper book. In order to support his contention, the ld AR has relied upon the statements of co-brothers who were seller of the land. On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that there was no documents evidence which shows that the land in question was sold by the assessee or his co-owners. It was submitted that no revised sale deed was placed on record by the assessee at any stage and even there was no agreement to sell which reflects total sale consideration at Rs. 20.80 lacs. It was submitted by the ld. DR that a letter dated 14/12/2017 U/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the purchases i.e. Smt. Nutan Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Arora in order to ascertain the real transaction and both Smt. Nutan Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Arora i.e. purchasers of the land had categorically submitted that the aforesaid transaction was made @ 6.75 lacs as is mentioned in the sale deed. After gone through the arguments of both the parties, we found that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee was one of the owner of the land in question located at Gram-Barso, Tehsil and Distt.- Bharatpur whic....