AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1978
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,43,67,864/- on account Slump sale, as alleged Short Term Capital gain, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the amount received on account of repayment of loan from M/s. Rangoli Plaza Private Limited as alleged Unexplained Cash Credit, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Additional Grounds of appeal: Filing of Additional Ground in addition and without prejudice and in addition to grounds raised in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble ITAT: 1) On the facts and circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity challenging the order of the ld. AO in reopening the assessment and on the additions made by the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding the reassessment to be valid and as per law and also dismissed the grounds challenging the addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to make any submission on the merits of the case inspite of several opportunities given to the assessee. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the abovementioned grounds. 7. The ld. AR for the assessee had challenged the assessment order on the reopening and argued extensively on the legal ground challenging the reassessment on various contentions that the ld. AO had reopened the assessee's case with the materials that were already available during the original assessment proceedings which was merely change of opinion by the ld. AO. The ld. AR further stated that during the scrutiny assessment the issue of capital gain on sale of mining business by the assessee to Seven Mining Pvt. Ltd. via a Slump Sale Agreement has already been dealt with and considered by the ld. AO. 8. The ld. AR further argued on the additional groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased on the seized/impounded materials post search where it was found that Shri Mukesh Banka was an entry operator and a key controlling person providing accommodation entry through various concerns of Banka Group. It was further observed that from the information received post search, the assessee was said to be one of the beneficiary of availing bogus accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 50,00,116/- during the year under consideration. It is also pertinent to point out that the other reason specified by the ld. AO for reopening the assessment was that the assessee has declared Long Term Capital Gain (long term capital gain (LTCG for short)) on sale of excavation business to M/s. Seven Mining Pvt. Ltd. in a slum sale for a consideration of Rs. 5,01,00,000/- which according to the ld. AO was to be treated as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). 12. As far as the first issue is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellery (supra) and also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Tirupati Construction (Supra), wherein it has been held that in case where reassessment is initiated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anvassed by Mr. Suresh Kumar, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra), however, the facts in the present case are distinct. There cannot be any doubt on the position in law when the Revenue intends to proceed purely on materials relevant for an action under Section 148 read with Section 147. We have already observed that the provisions of Sections 147, 148 vis-a-vis Section 153A and Section 153 are quite compartmentalized. To avoid any overlapping of these provisions, the legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to provide for an independent effect, to be given under Section 153A read with Section 153C by incorporating the "non-obstante" clause, in these provisions, which carves out an exception to any normal/regular action being resorted under Section 147. 24. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the impugned notice under Section 147 of the I.T. Act and all actions consequent thereto are required to be held to be without jurisdiction and bad in law. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b)." 13. Though the ld. DR placed reliance on the contrary decision of th....