AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r delete any ground of appeal during the course of appeal." 3. The assessee has raised two additional legal grounds, which are reproduced below: "(i). The order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law in the light of reasons recorded and because it is not passed as per special provisions contained in section 153C r.w.s. 153A and section 153B of the Act. (ii). The order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the order u/s 250 of the Act are bad in law as they are passed without Document Identification Number (DIN) mentioning therein and hence they are to be treated as invalid in view of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14-08-2019" 4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an individual. The assessee's case was reopened by taking "approval for reopening" from the Pr.CIT(Central), Ahmedabad. After that, notice u/s 148 of the Act, has been issued on 27.03.2019 and duly served upon the assessee, on 28.03.2019. The assessee has filed the return of income of Rs. 2,77,070/-, on 10.10.2019, in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. After that noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy been paid Rs 13,11,000/- on 26/11/2011 out of the total amount of Rs. 43,68,750/-. As per the above Sotakhat, the final installment of the deal consideration was to be paid on 24/01/2012. 5. Inquiry was conducted from the office of the mamlatdar and it was found that as per revenue records available in the office of mamlatdar, the land was earlier in the name of Sanatkuar Kiritkumar Pandya and has been transferred on 20/01/2012 in the name of Kiranbhal Harubhol Dangor & Sadgunaben Kiritbhai Bhutaiya for a sum of Rs. 4,51,000/- only. Therefore, all the details given in Satakhat has been found correct from records of revenue officials. Hence, this is abundantly clear that the details written in Satakhat are correct and hence the whole transaction amount of Rs 43,68,750/-has infoct happened between the transacting parties. 6. Further, the lost purchaser of the lond i.e. Kiranbhal Harubhal Dangar & Sadgunaben Kiritbhal Bhutaiyo have registered the deal for Rs 4,51,000/- only, while the actual consideration was Rs. 43,68,750/-(as given in impounded Satakhat). Hence the unaccounted part is Rs 39,17,750/-, which is required to be taxed in the hands of the transacting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited your office on 20th November, 2019 and 25th November, 2019. However, you could not supply the copy of SATAKHAT to him also. To sum up, I wish to state that I oppose your proposed addition of the amount on the basis that, I was and I am totally unaware about the "SATAKHAT" upon which you wish to add the amount. I never entered any such 'SATAKHAT' which you are referring to and never paid any ON Amount as described by you. Hence, I request you Sir, not to add the amount. And Still If you are not convinced then before any addition, I wish to have a copy of that SATAKHAT on the basis of which you wish to add the amount. Please provide it vide non corrupt easily openable file." 6. However, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and held that the assessee has made "on-money" payment on account of purchase of land for the A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, the amount of Rs. 19,58,875/- was added in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A), after consideri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a. The assessee has placed on record copy of application dated 22- 12-2011 along with the copy of return of income with computation of total income for AY 2008-09 of his co-sharer. No finding for accepting the similar capital gain in co-owners case, and treating the assessee indifferently, is given either by the assessing officer or by the ld.CIT(A). Though, during the first appellate stage, the ld CIT(A0 referred the matter to the DVO, however the addition based on deeming provision under section 50C of the Act was upheld. 13. Before us, the AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that once the similar capital gain as offered by the assessee on transfer of same asset has been accepted by the Revenue in assessee's co-owners case, the assessee cannot be treated indifferently and relied on various case laws as noted (supra). The learned AR of the assessee also relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench in M.Ambalal Desai (supra), Ramanbhai Ukabhai Patel (HUF) (supra). We have noted this combination of almost similar set of facts in case of Late Mohanlal Ambalal Desai (supra) passed the following order: ""7. We have considered the submission of both the parties a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is worked out at Rs. 24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee's share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs. 25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs. 1,33,363 has now been shown by the assessee in the Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee has not declared suo moto Long Term Capital Gain as he has not filed return of Income. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income." 10. We have noted that identical worded assessment order was passed in other co-owner case i.e. Smt. Prabhaben Harshadrai Desai, relevant part of the assessment order is extracted below;: "3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs. 2,00,00,001/- on 19-1-2009 situated at Survey No. 86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs. 4,09,....