TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows:- "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 17,90,000/- claimed u/s 54B of the Act. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hari Yojna) admeasuring 9,286 square meters on 08/06/2007 to M/s. Deeodeep Malls Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 7,81,00,000/-. Shri Riddhish Balkrishna Trivedi was having one fourth share in the land so sold, Smt Sudhaben B. Trivedi was also having one fourth share in the aforesaid land so sold and the rest of the half share was held by Shri Radheshyamu P Trivedi who is the brother of father of Riddhish B. Trivedi. Earlier to conversion to non-agricultural land, the land was demarketed as Survey No. 73 admeasuring 12,849 square meters situated at village Danilimda. In the case of Mr. Riddhish B. Trivedi proceedings u/s 263 of the 1.T.Act 1961 were initiated and claim of Rs. 31,00,000/- made u/s 54B of the IT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer and the formation of belief of escapement of income in the case of the assessee. 4.1 The reasons, in the first two paragraphs, reveal the information in the possession of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which he formed the belief of escapement of income in the case of the assessee. As per the said paragraph, we find that the Assessing Officer had information that a piece of land sold by the assessee during the year was co-owned with one Shri Riddhish Balkrishna Trivedi ,with the assessee being half owner of the land, and Shri Trivedi ¼th owner of the land. That the said land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 7.8 crores. That in the case of Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi, order u/s 263 of the Act had been passed noting that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer arrives at this conclusion. The information in his possession being that Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi had claimed incorrect deduction u/s 54B of the Act of capital gain in which the assessee was also a co-owner, there is nothing in the reason revealing that there was any identity of facts of the assessee's claim of deduction against capital gain returned to tax with that of Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi. The Assessing Officer is not even aware of the Section under which the assessee has claimed deduction of its capital gain. In view of the same, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that, on the basis of information regarding incorrect claim of deduction of capital gain by Shri Riddhish B. Trivedi, the Assessing Officer could not have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is no basis mentioned in the reasons for the belief of the Assessing Officer that the assessee's entire claim of deduction under Section 48 of the Act was incorrect. And this escapement of income has absolutely no link or correlation with the information in the possession of the AO that the other co-owner of land had incorrectly claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act. 5. In view of the above, we are in complete agreement with the assessee that the reasons recorded by the AO showing his formation of belief of escapement of income of the assessee were insufficient for assuming a valid jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act since... * The reasons exhibited no live link between the information in the possession....