TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of Rs. 2,12,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not consideration the written submissions placed before him in its proper perspective. The addition made by the A.O. in his confused state of mind and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. It be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law when the objection raised in appeal going to the root of the matter and seriously affecting the jurisdiction of the A. O. to frame assessment under S. 147 r.w.s 143(3) were raised before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legal issues causing great prejudice to the appellant. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside resultantly cancelling the assessment order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the legal issues raised before him that no reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 were recorded before the issue of the notice u/s 148 and also copy of reasons recorded was not furnished to the assessee. The authorities failed to consider the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter. The appeal order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad received a complaint against the assessee from the DCIT(Inv.) that the assessee had acquired two shops by paying Rs.2.12 Crores in cash in Laxmi Road area of Pune City, i.e. Shop nos.30 & 31 owned by a Charitable Trust viz., Maharashtra Girls Education Society. The AO found that the two shops were given on rent to Mrs. Sushilabai B. Agarwal who died and after her death the society searched for tenants, through the legal heirs of the deceased were reluctant to hand over the possession in favour of the Trust. Therefore, the negotiation was made amongst 5 persons of Shah Family and Mehta family (on behalf of Society) and a written agreement dated15/07/2006 was performed. The AO found from the agreement that a figure was written as "0-20", which was considered as transfer fee. The AO further found that in the letter dated 02/02/2006 written in Marathi, it was stated that Rs.20,00,000/- had been given "2-12", which indicated the amount of Rs.2,12,00,000/-. It was noticed by the AO that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.1,87,00,000/- was given to Shri Rajkumar B Agarwal, the legal heir of late Smt. Sushilabai B Agarwal for getting the possession of the two shops. Since these doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been filed in response to notice u/s., 148 of the Act. It was contended that the assessee was not explained who was the complainant. The appellant referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kothari Metals vs ITO [2015] 377 ITR 581 (Kar) contending that on the identical facts as in the case of the appellant, the Hon'ble Court held that the reasons recorded but not furnished to the assessee even after furnishing of the return and / or filing declaring to the effect that the return already filed be taken to have been filed in response to notice u/s.48 of the Act, the action to reopen was not valid. The appellant has also cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs S Goyanka Line and Chemical Ltd. [2016] 67 (I) ITCL 393 (SC) contending that the SLP filed by the revenue in the said case was dismissed against the order of the High Court wherein it was held that since the reasons recorded by Jt. CIT for according sanction for issuing notice u/s. 148 was without application of mind and was mechanical in manner, reopening of assessment was not valid. The appellant finally contended that the above may be considered and as raised in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant as to how the sanctioned accorded by the Addl. CIT for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act was "Mechanical". I find that the appellant had made a while delegation only to frustrate the valid addition made by the AO in the assessment order. Nowhere in the submission had the appellant contested about the facts relating to such transactions, which had actually taken place. Therefore, the argument and submission of the appellant that the sanctioned was granted by the Addl. CIT in a Mechanical manner is not only baseless but far from the factual and legal matrix in the case of the appellant. The cases cited are not only misplaced but also are not at all applicable in the case of the appellant for the .aforesaid facts. Thirdly, the appellant himself had admitted against reply to question no. 15 in the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act that he admitted for addition 1/3rd of the amount of Rs.2,12,00,000/- as the remaining 2/3rd pertain to his two sons viz. Shri Ramesh Shah and Shri Ashishbhai Shah, who were also the signatories in the agreement. It indirectly implied that the transaction of Rs.2,12,00,000/- had actually taken place for the transfer of the land. As alr....