TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 was issued mechanically through CASS and not by ACIT, Range -3 which is also accepted by the Ld. A.O. therefore, the impugned Assessment order is illegal, void-ab -initio and liable to be quashed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned assessment order ignoring the fact that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Appeals), dated 20.09.2016 was issued by ACIT, Range-3, Lucknow, being the non- jurisdictional officer, therefore the impugned assessment order is illegal, void-ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned assessment order ignoring the fact that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.09.2016 was issued by ACIT, Range-3, Lucknow, however, the case was transferred to Income Tax Officer-3(4), without any order u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore the impugned assessment order is illegal, void-ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned assessment order ignoring the fact, that objections in the jurisdiction which was ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IMITED SCRUTINY, dated 20.09.2016 having DIN- ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2016-17/1000380980(1) 5. Copy of notice issued under section 142(1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 along with Questionnaire, dated 14.06.2017 6. In response to notice under section 142(1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.06.2017 the assessee has furnished a reply along with attachments, dated 23.06.2017 7. Case was converted from LIMITED to COMPLETE Scrutiny, dated 29.11.2017 8. Copy of notice issued under section 143(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring the assessee to furnish actual sale consideration paid in respect of property purchased from Shalimar Corp Limited, dated 04.12.2017 9. Reply dated 18.12.2017 in response to notice issued u/s 143(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2017 providing explanation relating to difference in stamp duty value and actual consideration paid by assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b), inter-alia along with following attachments :- (i) Reply dated 14.12.2017 (P.B.No -121) (ii)Reply dated 16.12.2017 (P.B.No -122) 10. Copy of Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) Of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2017 11. Copy of Order Passed unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2015 27. Judgement of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Patna) 28. Judgement of Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur Bench in the case of Yashoda Builders And Developers Vs ACIT Circle-1, Nagpur in ITA No. 302/Nag/2024 29. Judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel Vs Union of India [2015] 59 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay) 30. Judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science (P.) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 10(3) [2016] 66 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay) Index of Supplementary Paper Book S.NO Particulars 1 Synopsis in the case of Appellant 2 Judgment of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Kusum Goyal Vs. I.T.O. [(2010) 329 I.T.R. 283 (Calcutta)] 3 Decision of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. "A" Bench Bangalore in the case of Amit Kumar Banthia (HUF) Vs. D.C.I.T., Circle- 1(1), Bangalore in I.T.A. No. 2326/Bang/2024 4 Judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 559 (Karn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at all and the proceedings are valid in law ... " On this issue the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has given his finding at Para 6.1.2 and held that all the officers in given range had concurrent jurisdiction of all the cases at the given time depending upon the total income as per the case, as per return the jurisdiction was decided. Since the jurisdiction of the present case automatically vested with ACIT there was no need to pass the jurisdiction order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the precise reason that all the officers had concurrent jurisdiction over the cases falling in jurisdiction in the particular range, further as per provisions of section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 there is no requirement of passing the order under section 127 for transferring the case from one Officer to another officer. The reason given by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. is erroneous. Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specified that the CBDT has power to issue directions or order to Income Tax Authorities to exercise jurisdiction over the case of any one or more of the following criteria namely: a) Territorial area b) Persons or classes of persons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1(1), Bangalore in I.T.A. No. 2326/Bang/2024 (P.B. No.383-386) ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 559 (Karnataka)(P.B No. 387-389) Ground of Appeal No. 6, 7 & 8: Initially the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny on the issue "Deduction claimed under the head Capital Gains" refer P.B 22 however subsequently at fag end of limitation of 31.12.2017, on 29.11.2017 the Ld. AO converted the case from Limited to Complete Scrutiny and notice under section 142(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 dated 04.12.2017 and was issued fixing the date of compliance on 13.12.2017 . In response the appellant filed following replies Reply dated 14.12.2017 (P.B No. 121) Reply Dated 16.12.2017 (P.B No.122) Vide Letter dated 18.12.2017 and vide letter dated 14.12.2017 submitted before the Ld. A.O. (Page No. 118 to 119). The assessee filed explanation relating to difference in Stamp Duty Value and Actual Purchase Consideration paid by the assessee and also requested to refer the matter to DVO in case the explanation is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....calculation purpose is calculated as under: i) Value of Land 37,45,140.00 ii) Value of Construction 36,43,200.00 iii) Sub Total 73,88,340.00 iv) Value of Common Facilities for stamp purposes 11,08,251.00 Total Value for stamp Purpose 84,96,591.00 Copy of relevant page of stamp value is fixed by authorities is enclosed. Further as per clause 5 on Page 7 of the said purchase deed, the assessee has no ownership right over common facilities but he can only use these facilities i.e. the ownership of common facilities is not transferred in favour of assessee, further on page 13, the schedule of the property which is transferred in favour of assessee is only Flat. However, Stamp Duty is charged not only for the transfer of immovable property but also Stamp Duty is charged on Right to use the common area/common facilities, which is in nature of intangible property whereas immovable property as contemplated in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is tangible property. It is submitted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read as under: (Quote) " ... [(vii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that no addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax act, 1961 is warranted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions/Judgments :- i) Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur Bench in the case of Yashoda Builders and Developers Vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Nagpur in ITA No. 302/Nag/2024. (P.B No. 344-361) ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Patna). (P.B No. 341-343) iii) Decision of Hon'ble Mumbai "E" Bench in the case of Mr. Suresh C. Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 33/Mum/2011. (P.B No. 225-231) (C) At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the aforesaid synopsis. He also placed reliance on the following precedents: (1) Order of ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No.83/Lkw/2024 (2) Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mohd Ilyas Ansari vs. Income Tax Officer [2021] 123 taxmann.com 122 (Mumbai- Trib) (3) Order of ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of Hari Om Garg vs Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No.342....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and on the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). (C.2) Both sides have been heard. Materials on record have been perused. It is not in dispute that the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to make a reference to Departmental Valuation Officer ("D.V.O." for short) for determination of fair market value of the property. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer did not make a reference to D.V.O. despite specific request made by the assessee. In these facts, the Division Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow has already taken a view in favour of the assessee in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. ITO (supra), the relevant part of which is reproduced below: "8. We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on records. It is not in dispute that vide letter dated 11/11/2021, the assessee requested for reference to Valuation Officer for determination of fair market value of the property purchased by the assessee and the property sold by the assessee. The provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act as well as proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act; mandate reference by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue is thus upheld. The grounds are accordingly rejected." 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid order of Delhi Bench of ITAT of Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. M/ s. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) (supra), we hold that the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 2,14,22,053/- and Rs. 49,11,947/-, as aforesaid, without reference to the Valuation Officer as mandated by law, has no legs to stand and is unsustainable; having regard to applicable law as well as facts and circumstances of the present case before us. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 03/01/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) and we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid additions of Rs. 2,14,22,053 and Rs. 49,11,947/ -. 10. Since we have already directed the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid additions of Rs. 2,14,22,053 and Rs. 49,11,947/-, the remaining arguments advanced by both sides are merely academic in nature and need not to be adjudicated." The orders in the case of Mohd Ilyas Ansari vs. Income Tax Officer [2021] 123 taxmann.com 122 (Mumbai-Trib), Hari Om Garg vs Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No.342/Agra/2017, ACIT vs. Lalitha Karan in I.T.A. No.1130....