AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come from other source'. The said receipts, it was common ground, arose to the assessee in pursuance to an alleged MOU entered into for sale of land. Since admittedly the issue in all the cases before us is the same, arising in the backdrop of identical set of facts, therefore, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of vide this common and consolidated order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was noted to have received amounts in the impugned years as a result of an MOU between the assessee (seller) and Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Majid Shaikh (purchaser) for a land bearing Survey Nos. 506, 507 and 508 at Village Abhwa, Tal. Choryasi, District Surat. The report of the Investigation Wing of the department revealed that as per the MOU the entire deal was of Rs. 151 Crores. Accordingly, the AO formed reason to believe that income to the extent of amount received in the respective years had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the Act and reopened the case of the assessee by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. During assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee was not the owner of the land for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount mentioned of Rs 1,10,000/- as escapement in Reasons Recorded for Reopening and actual addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- which goes to the root of Assessment and against provision of Law and various judgement held in favour of Appellant for which relies is placed in binding judgement of Gujarat High Court in case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel 367 ITR P.234 and it is submit that the Asst, order be cancelled. 2. Your Appellant submits that on facts of the case and us provision of Law the CIT(A) ought to have held that Reopening of Assessment u/s 147 of the Act by Notice u/s 148 dated 30-32016 for A.Y 2009-10 is Time Barred and therefore the proceedings and the Asst. Order is bad in Law and Void. 3. (a) It is also submitted by the Appellant that notice u/s.148 dated 30-3-2016 was not accompanied by copy of Reasons Recorded for Reopening and it supply on 16-6-2016 is not as per provision of Law and various judgements of judicial authorities and bad in Law and Void. (b) Your Appellant further submits that the Reasons Recorded has no direct relation with facts of the case and no direct link as well as satisfaction of the AO to uphold the alleged escapement of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raw any or all Grounds of Appeal." 6. These grounds are identically raised in all the appeals before us. 7. With respect to the grounds raised on the merits of the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), during the course of hearing before us, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee was found not to be the owner of the lands against which he had stated the amounts to have been received by the assessee as advance for the sale of the said lands was read out in open Court and are reproduced hereunder: "The submissions made by the appellant have been considered carefully and contextualized to the facts of appellant's case. It is seen from the Assessment records, the Assessee has received sums from Mr. Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Majid, not only in the current year but also in other years as given in the table below:- A.Y. Date of Assessment Amount of receipt taxed (1) (2) (3) AY 2009-10 25.11.2016 4,50,000/- AY 2010-11 06.10.2017 19,50,000/- AY 2013-14 08.11.2017 58,50,000/- AY 2014-15 06.10.2017 10,00,000/- This is an undisputed fact that no asset is owned by the Assessee. Yet, she is receiving mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts due to the disputes between the subsequent owners and the government and not because of any ownership rights of any kind in the said parcel of land. The appellant has received the sums over the years without any consideration and just because of the disputes centered on the lands they had parted with in year 1968. These receipts clearly fall in the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(a), and the AO has rightly taxed the same under the head Income from other sources. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed fully." 8. The following facts noted by the Ld.CIT(A) leading to his finding that the assessee was not the owner of any asset was categorically pointed out to the Ld.Counsel for the assessee : * That no asset was owned by the assessee in Village Abhawa * That the impugned land had been actually sold to one Shri Maganbhai Becharbhai Patel and others in the year 1968, who had pursued the litigation in relation to the said land before various revenue and judicial authorities and even got decisions in his favour. * The Ld. CIT(A) had noted that this fact was admitted by the assessee herself and at no stage it was submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing been received by the assessee for sale of the impugned lands, therefore, has been rightly held to not support the explanation of the assessee. In fact, at para 5.3 of his order, Ld. CIT(A) has noted that even the said MOU/agreement clearly stated that the assessee and her other family members were not in possession of the impugned land and admittedly had sold the same to Shri Maganbhai Becharbhai Patel and others in 1968. Therefore, it is an uncontroverted admitted and accepted fact that the impugned lands for which the assessee had allegedly stated to have received advance on sale thereof had been sold way back in 1968 and the assessee in no way was its owner nor in possession thereof. 13. In the light of the above admitted fact, the amounts received by the assessee year-to-year is clearly not an advance on the sale of the said land has been rightly held to be casual income received by the assessee taxable under the head 'income from other sources'. The ground raised by the assessee on the merits of the addition, therefore, stands rejected. 14. Vis-à-vis legal ground raised by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment framed u/s.147 of the Act, Ld. Couns....