TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax Act, 1961 after recording of reasons and obtaining the requisite approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Gurgaon. Accordingly, notice under section 148 dated 30/03/2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed his return of income on 01/09/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 22,37,610/- along with agricultural income of Rs. 75,000/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 25/09/2018 and the reasons recorded for reopening were supplied to the assessee on 27/09/2018. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had sold land for a consideration of Rs. 9,50,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee was require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asset sold was a capital asset. The total deduction claimed amounted to Rs. 10,65,18,984/-. In respect of the claim under section 54F, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that construction of a residential house had actually been carried out or completed within the prescribed period of three years. Mere bank withdrawals reflected in the ledger were held to be insufficient. Further, the residential plot was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and his son, which disentitled the assessee from claiming the full benefit under section 54F. 3.4 With regard to the claim under section 54B, the Assessing Officer noted that the agricultural land was purchased jointly in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessment order was not made available in time by the Chartered Accountant acting as attorney holder. Placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamoorthy, the CIT(A) held that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide. Being satisfied with the explanation, the delay of 66 days was condoned. 5.1 On merits, the CIT(A) examined the addition of Rs. 1,13,56,916/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) observed that the additions were made due to the assessee's failure to furnish complete and satisfactory replies during the assessment proceedings. It was further noted that, even a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiated under section 147 of the Act after due recording of reasons and obtaining the requisite approval. The notices under sections 148 and 143(2) were duly served and the assessee participated in the proceedings. Hence, the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is without merit. 9.2 On merits, the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that the land sold was rural agricultural land not falling within the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14) of the Act. The distance certificate produced was illegible and no cogent documentary evidence was furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A). On the contrary, the Assessing Officer rightly relied upon the relevant statutory notificati....