2025 (7) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... his registered email id which is also mentioned in Form 35. 2. The CIT (A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in upholding the Reopening of the Assessment u/s. 147 and therefore order passed by the ITO is bad in Law and Void. Your Appellant submits that the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30-3-2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 is bad in Law and Time Barred and therefore not operative and also the day of issue of Notice was Saturday a Holiday in Government Office and therefore the issue of Notice is bad in Law. 3. (a) Without prejudice your Appellant submits that the Reasons Recorded by the AO for Reopening the assessment are at dated 27-11-2019 which means after issue of notice u/s. 148 of 30-3- 2009 making the entire proceedings bad in Law. (b) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore Interest is not chargeable. 2. On facts of the case your Appellant submits that since the Assessee had genuine and bonafide belief that his Income is not liable to tax and is not required to file Return of Income. Hence for good and valid reason and therefore Interest of Rs 36,366 u/s 234A is not chargeable and also is not correctly worked out. 3. Your Appellant also submits hat Interest u/s 234B is also not chargeable since your Appellant was not liable to pay Advance Tax u/s. 208 of the Act and hence there is no question of his failure and Section does not apply and therefore Interest of Rs. 38,874/-be deleted. It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat Shri Jiterndra Hushmukhbhai Patel has purchased immoveable property for Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on 05-12-2011 from Smt. Shantaben Somabhaimali and five other co-owners and seven confirming parties. The assessee being one of the parties received an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- in the said transaction and thus it is a capital gain. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in making the addition as income from other sources. The ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of the other confirming party, Santokben Rameshbhai Mali wherein the Tribunal in ITA No. 265/Ahd/2023 has treated the same as long term capital gain. (ITA No. 265/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2012-13) 5. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment ord....