AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction is illegal. The same be cancelled. Rs.5,06,68,190/- 2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 3 of appeal in summary manner without appreciating the facts that provisions of 10(37) of the Act are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, amount received on acquisition of land is not subject to tax. Rs.5,06,68,190/- 3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 5 of appeal in summary manner without appreciating the facts that the capital gain is exempt u/s 11(1A) of the Act as the application filed u/s 12AA of the Act is pending for registration before the Worthy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions). Hence, amount received from government on acquisition of land is not subject to tax. Rs.5,06,68,190/- 4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 6 of appeal in summary manner without appreciating the facts that provisions of section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act are applicable on the assessee's case. Hence, not liable to tax. Rs.5,06,68,190/- 5 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 7 of appeal in summary manner without appreciating the facts that val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the cases are that the assessee is a trust and doing the charitable activities without considering any caste or creeds. The assessee was allotted Permanent Account Number (PAN) under the Act, on 23.09.2013 in the status of trust and filed return accordingly. The notice u/s 148 was issued by the ld. Assessing Officer,Ward-1(4)/Mansa (in brevity the AO) dated 06.12.2016. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed return declaring nil income in Form 7 on 21.02.2017 u/s 139 (4A). Accordingly the assessee claimed exemption u/s 11 on the strength of application filed by the assessee u/s 12AA of the Act on 21.12.2016. The application of registration was filed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [in brevity the ld. CIT(E)]. The application was filed earlier before filing of the return u/s 148 of the Act. But the ld. AO did not consider assessee's claim in return and assessed the return as Association of Person (Trust) and added back the income with the total income of the assessee. In other issue, for the assessment year 2014-15, the agricultural land of assessee was acquired by Punjab Govt on dated 29.08.2013. The assessee computed capital gai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Here, the exemption application was filed earlier before filing of return of income U/s 148 of the Act. 6.2 On basis of claimed of exemption u/s 11 the counsel of the assessee Mr. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, placed that the territorial jurisdiction of the assessee was shifted to concurrent jurisdiction under the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Chandigarh. Mr. Sehgal also placed that the territorial jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 1(4), Mansa had no authority for completion of assessment as per the CBDT Circular No. 52/2014 dated 22.10.2014. The relevant part is extracted hereunder: "Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Chandigarh States of Jauum and Kashmir Himachal Pradesh, Punjab Haryana and Union territory of Chandigarh All cases of persons in the territorial, area specified in column (4) claiming exemption under clauses (21), (22),(22A),(22B),(23),(23A),(23AAA), and (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of section 10, section 11, section 12, section 13A and section 13B of the Income tax Act, 1961 and assessed or assessable by an income tax authority at serial numbers 50 to 68 specified in the notification of Government of India bearing number S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2016 but against the rejection order, the appeal has been filed before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar on 18.08.2017 which is still pending. As such the jurisdiction in this case is only with the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Amritsar not in your ward. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is, therefore, requested that the proceedings started under section 148 of the Income Tax Act started may kindly be dropped as notice has been issued without jurisdiction." 3. The objections of the assessee were rejected vide this office order dated 12.09.2017 as these were not acceptable for the following reasons:- (i) As regards filing of return of income claiming the status as charitable trust is not acceptable because the assessee is not having registration u/ s 12AA of I. T. Act, 1961. (ii) In this case no exemption u/s 12A of I. T. Act, 1961 is available upto the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has applied for registration u/s 12AA of I. T. Act, 1961 before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) on 21.12.2016 i.e. after receipt of notice u/s 148 of I. T. Act, 1961. The application has been rejected by the worth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sponse, the assessee filed written reply which is reproduced as under:- "The office of the assessee trust is situated in District Mansa and at the time of applying for Permanent Account Number, the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee trust was with the Assessing Officer, Mansa working under the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda but thereafter, as per Notification No.52/2014 dated 22.10.2014, the Hon'ble CBDT has changed the jurisdiction of the persons claiming exemptions under section (21), (22), (22A), (22B)k, (23), (23A), (23AAA), (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13A and section 13B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Assessing Officer working under the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh earlier being assessable by the Assessing Officer working under Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax referred at Sr. No. 50 to 68 of the notification of the Government of India bearing number S.O. 2752(E) dated the 22nd October, 2014. Admittedly, in this case the assessee trust is claiming exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the basic jurisdiction iw the case of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer exercising territorial jurisdiction mounted reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 06/12/2016 which was served upon the appellant through registered post on 09/12/2016 and through notice server on 15/12/2016. These are the relevant dates because at that point of time undisputedly there was no circumstance in existence which could show that the present Assessing Officer could not exercise jurisdiction over the appellant. Subsequent to a valid issue of notice under section 148 and assumption of valid jurisdiction the present proceedings were initiated. The entire logic presumption of jurisdiction was explained in the case of Abhishek Jain v. ITO: [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi): holding that in terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one-month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of Income Tax Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajni Gugnani vs. CIT: [2014] 44 taxmann.com 98 (Punjab & Haryana) clarified the conflict of territorial and transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation to rejection of the jurisdictional issue of assessee by the ld. AO. The judgments are as follows, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain, and in case of Rajni Gugnani, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, 44 taxmann.com 98. Mr. Sehgal Mention that the revenue authorities rely on the two judgments but in the case of Sh. Abhishek Jain there is no applicability in this case, since the facts are entirely different with the present case. By way of specific notification dated 22.10.2014 that the jurisdiction all over India is through transfer of assessee who claimed exemption u/s 11 and 12. He further mentioned that in case of Rajni Gugnani at page 5 of the order is also different fact, because here also there is no conflict between two AOs. In the assessee's case as per the notification the jurisdiction stands transfer. Thus submission of the assessee by way of ground no. 1 may please be accepted. 9. The ld. Counsel of the assessee Mr. Sehgal submitted chart of the events which is extracted as follows: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Date of Incorporation 23.09.2013 Issue of Notice u/s 148 06.12.2016 Application for registration u/s 12AA 21.12.2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was made for registration u/s 12AA. Accordingly, the jurisdiction was generated in the financial year 2016-17 before the ld CIT(E), Chandigarh. During the assessment this particular jurisdiction was deemed jurisdiction so this particular jurisdiction is not with the assessing authority, ITO Ward 1(4), Mansa but with the CIT(E) Chandigarh. 10.2 In this respect the reliance was placed on the judgment of M. I. Builders P. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.111/Luck/2006 date of order 07.09.2007, 115 ITD 0419 (2008). As per the order: "29. The argument of learned Departmental Representative that since the assessee has not objected to the assessment framed for the asst. yr. 2001-02 and, therefore, Asstt. CIT, Range-IV, Lucknow can validly issue notice under s. 148(1) is not sustainable in law. As discussed above, protection of the proceedings and assessment thereafter on account of failure of the assessee to object within the time allowed under s. 124(3) is available to specific proceeding and not to every proceeding. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction cannot, in general, be validated. Such validation is specific in s. 124(3). Secondly, principles of estoppel are not applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agricultural land amount of Rs.10,76,33,375/-. The exemption was claimed in applicability of section 11(1A) of the Act and exemption of capital gain arising out of compulsory acquisition of assessee's land. In view of the said section, the assessee has also invested the net consideration to the extent of Rs.10,76,33,375/- in another agricultural land. The assessee is debitable this particular land was acquired by the assessee on date which was prior to 01.04.1981. For the valuation of the cost of acquisition, the assessee was made valuation of the land by Mr. Mani Kant Garg, the Government approved valuer of Income Tax. The valuation certificate is enclosed in paper book from page 153 to 157 dated 20.02.2017. According to the valuation report the cost of land on 01.04.1981 is Rs.59,15,000/-. The valuation report was placed by the assessee before the AO. The observation of the ld. AO in this is as follows:- "d) In para 2 of the reply the assessee also contended that as per order of worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh the assessee was not owner of the land which was acquired by the Punjab Govt. This contention of the assessee is also not acceptable in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isition adopted by the Assessing Officer by applying the rate of Rs. 5970 per kanal (Rs.47,760/- per acre) relying upon valuation report dated 20/02/2017 where the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 has been calculated at Rs. 59,15,000/- per acre. The calculation of the Assessing Officer was based upon actual transaction having been transacted at the relevant time as per the record of revenue authorities. The valuation report is submitted by the appellant was not based on actual transaction but merely on assumptions. The appellant has not pointed out any defect in the comparative case adopted by the Assessing Officer which is a real and not imaginary. The calculation of the Assessing Officer is based on credible information, therefore in absence of any objection by the appellant cannot be disbelieved. The ground of appeal is dismissed. In consideration of totality of circumstances as mentioned above, the grounds of appeal from 3 to 7 are devoid of any merits and hence dismissed." 16. Other than the agricultural land in both the years, assessee claimed deduction of interest for the year 2014-15 amount to Rs.2,37,702/- and for A.Y. 2015-16 amount to Rs. 44,73,197/- and al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2021] 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur-Trib.). ii. SNDP Yogam vs. ADIT (Exemption) [2016] 68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin- Trib.) iii. Punjab Educational Society vs. ITO-IT, Moga [2017] 88 taxmann.com 113 (Amritsar-Trib.). iv. St. Jude's Convent School vs. ACIT, Circle-III, Jalandhar [2017] 77 taxmann.com 173 (Amritsar-Trib.). 17. The ld. CIT(A) had rejected the claim of the assessee as applicability of section 11(1A) for the A.Y. 2014-15 only due to the want of registration u/s 12AA and it has been approved beyond any doubt that assessee is deemed to be registered u/s 12AA for the year under consideration on the basis of second proviso to clause 2 of section 12A as per binding judgments. The assessment for both the years was pending during the time of approval/deemed approval. So the assessment proceedings were pending during approval. So the applicability of section 12A is also casted in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16. The expenses related to Golak donation and interest should be calculated in taking consideration of section 11 r.w.s. 12A of the Act. 19. In adjudication of valuation of cost of acquisition it is very clear that a land was purchased before 01.....