TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment order purportedly passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B, even though the Assessing Officer who initiated the proceedings u/s 148 had no valid jurisdiction to do so. The assumption of jurisdiction itself being void ab initio, the entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Ld. Assessing Officer without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in arbitrarily rejecting the objection rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 23.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,03,380/- consisting of income from salary and interest under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, during the relevant year, I had also sold a rural agricultural land situated at Village Magarbacha, realizing total sale consideration of Rs. 17,28,000/-, which, being rural agricultural land, was not liable to capital gains tax. 2. That my case was selected for reassessment proceedings, and an order under section 147 of the Act was passed making an addition of Rs. 34,12,620/- as Long-Term Capital Gain arising from the sale of land situated at Village Magarbacha, including an alleged receipt of on-money amounting to Rs. 16,84,620/-. 3. That against such order, I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voidable delay and extend due justice to the Appellant. 3. I have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit as well as delay condonation petition. I do not find any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee for filing appeal belatedly. Rather, due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, such delay has occurred. That even the Ld. Sr. DR also conceded for condonation of the said delay. Accordingly, the delay of 5 days involved in the present appeal is condoned keeping in view of the directives in the judgments viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos................./2025 [Special L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2021 was issued by the Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (the Jurisdictional AO'). In response to the same, the appellant filed its return of income on 23.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 3,03,380/- under the provisions of the Act. The notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s 147 dated 08.10.2021 along with reasons was issued by the jurisdictional AO. 5. The reasons recorded for reopening of the case stated that "Please find the sale dead of the property sold by you during the year under consideration and reason for not showing capital gain earned on such transmission in the return of income field by you in response to the notice of 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." However, no sale deed was attached with the notice. 6. In respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said land is an agricultural land and is outside the purview of capital asset and therefore, no capital gain should be attracted. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC writes that on perusal of the remand report and other documents including submission of the assessee, it is found that the allegation of the A.O was incorrect and invalid as the distance of the land from the municipal limit is 2.75 Km as per google map and further the same was verified from certificate of Patwari issued vide order dated 17.03.2022 wherein it was clearly stated that distance of the land as per google map is 2.75 Km from municipal limit. Hence, the above allegation of the A.O is baseless, incorrect and invalid. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC further writes that the A.O viola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtifies that the land to be an agricultural land. Further, at Para 8.4 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order, it was observed by the first appellate authority that the A.O has acted behind the back of the assessee without confronting the assessee with all the relevant materials/evidences which have been used by the A.O against the assessee which was therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. That once, it has been decided by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that the allegation of the A.O that the said land was capital asset is baseless, incorrect and invalid and there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and that in fact as per evidence furnished by the assessee the land sold is an agricultural land, thereafter, it....