TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 2054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical enquiry of the land, several statements of the persons staying nearby the land were taken in the presence of representative of the assessee and after considering the circle rate of aforesaid land provided by Sub- Registrar (V-A) Hauz Khas, Mehrauli. The assessee has failed to prove the claim of sale of land being agriculture land, therefore the same remained questioned and unexplained. 3. The appellant reserves right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal on or, before the date of disposal of appeal." 3. The assessee has filed a cross objection along with a petition for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the CO. The grounds of CO is as under: 01. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer despite the fact that the same was framed beyond the time as prescribed u/s 153(1)(a) of the Act. 02. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the limitation for framing assessment holding that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence to support his contention that the assessment order was dispatched on 01.04.2016 when the same was produced before the Ld. CIT(A). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he packet on 31.03.2016, having no mention of time, hence, document produced by the Assessing Officer is not reliable. Moreover, document produced by the Revenue has only one entry whereas in general practice, more than one order are passed and dispatched by the Assessing Officer on the last day of limitation period, hence it appears that the document produced, is created in connivance with pick-up man. The ld AR stated that the AO did not respond to the query with regard to number of orders dispatched on the last day i.e. 31.03.2016 in Range-29 nor any reply was given under Right to information Act application which clearly raises the doubt as to the reliability of document produced by the Assessing Officer. 7. The ld AR further doubted the entry in the order sheet dated 31.03.2016, which reads "the assessee himself alongwith his Accountant appeared, filed reply, but went without signing the order-sheet, case discussed, order passed". It is the averment of the assessee that he had, on all earlier hearings/occasions, signed the order-sheet as required by the Assessing Officer. The ld AR alleged the AO subsequently on 01.04.2016, completed the order-sheet, passed the order and di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ert the fact that as per assessment record, the assessment order was made and the tax payable was determined on 31.03.2016. 10. We find that the assessee has made an allegation that the assessment order was made on 01.04.2016 and to substantiate the allegation, the assessee has submitted evidence in the form of track record of the postal department showing the booking of item on 01.04.2016 at 17.07 hrs and his own statement that he attended the hearing on 31.03.2016 at 5.30 pm. According to the assessee, since the assessment order was booked for dispatch in the evening of 01.04.2016, it has to be presumed that the order was passed on 01.04.2016 and not on 31.03.2016. The assessee further dismissed the documents filed by the AO in the remand report regarding B.M.P.L. Articles pick-up man from I.P.H.O. who collected the packet on 31.03.2016, as not reliable and being created in connivance with the pick-up man. 11. In the above factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the fact of assessment order being dispatched on 01.04.2016 would not in itself prove that order was framed on that same day. The fact that the assessment order is dated 31.03.2016 is a proof in itself th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des that the AO shall 'make' an assessment order and determine the tax payable. It is the provisions under section 153 of the I T Act which provides for limitation for making the assessment. Section 143(3) reads as under: "(3) On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall by an order in writing. make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and determine the sum payable by him or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment." The word "assessment" in section 153 means not merely the computation of the income of the assessee but also the determination of the tax payable by him as held in Mohendra J. Thacker & Co. v. CIT, (1983) 139 ITR 793 (Cal)]. 14. It is the provisions of section 153(1)(a) which deals with time limitation for making the assessment order which reads as under: 153. Time limit for completion of assessments and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivasa Rao v. CWT, (1985) 152 ITR 128 (AP), the assessment order was passed within the period of limitation but communicated thereafter, the court held that the same was not barred by limitation. The hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of P.G. Nagendra v. CCT, (1998) 109 STC 143, (Karn) held, following the hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah and Co. [1994] 93 STC 406 (SC), that where an order is passed within the period of limitation, then the fact that it is served on the dealer after the period of limitation, is of no consequence for computing limitation. The hon'ble Kerala High Court held the same in the case of CAgIT v. Kappumalai Estate, (1998) 234 ITR 187, 188 (Ker), applying Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala, (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker). 17. The reliance on the decision of Pankaj Sharma; Trinadh Chowdary (supra) are distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the AO is able to show that the assessment order along with tax payable notice was picked up by the postal authorities on 31st March 2016 itself for dispatch on 01.04.2016. No such fact was available in the cases relied upon by the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- per sq.mt for Neb Valley being in category F; calculated the deemed value of land u/s 50C at Rs. 4,39,33,680/-and levied a long term capital Gain of Rs. 4,18,98, 128/-. 20. On appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, relief was granted to the assessee on both the accounts. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 21. With respect to ground no 1, the ld DR submitted that while it is true that the CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences under Rule 46A submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A), to the AO for verification which was not complied with. Nevertheless, the ld DR argued that it was incumbent upon the CIT(A), in such a situation, to examine critically the additional evidence at his own level instead of simply admitting the same and declaring that the assessee has discharged his initial onus to prove cash credits in his books. The ld DR stated that the CIT(A) was more obliged to enquire the veracity of cash credits when he himself found that the AO had not made any enquiries in respect of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 22. Per contra, the ld AR stated that out of Rs 5.25 crore loan taken by the assessee, loan of Rs 2 crore pertained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and creditworthiness of the lenders. 24. We are of the considered view that interpretation of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules is that it only fetters rights of assessee to produce additional evidence but it does not restrain Commissioner (Appeals) power under section 250(4) or section 250(5). The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation Of India Limited [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) had held that in the absence of any statutory provision, the general principle relating to the amplitude of the powers of the CIT(A) is that such powers are plenary and are coterminous with that of the subordinate authority. We therefore, find considerable force in the arguments of the ld DR that where the AO failed to make the inquiry, it was an obligation upon the CIT(A) to make enquiry regarding the veracity of the loan from RKG Finvest instead of declaring simpliciter that the assessee had discharged his initial onus. We find that in the instant case, the ITR of the lender showed losses which needed further enquiry on the part of CIT(A) to establish the three limbs under section 68 of the Act with respect to the credits in the books, especially the creditworthiness of the lender. We are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here. The Inspector's report and field inquiries clearly established that the land had no agricultural features and was in a residential zone, warranting its classification as residential for taxation. 28. The ld. DR submitted that the JCIT conducted inquiries based on the land's actual usage and location. The residential circle rate reflects the reality of the land's value and its market conditions. Ignoring this would result in tax evasion and an undervaluation of the capital gains. Section 50C is an anti-abuse provision to curb undervaluation of property transactions. The appellant's reliance on old classification records and RTI responses undermines this legislative intent. 29. Per contra, the ld counsel of the assessee heavily relied on the CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld AR submitted that the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee on account of the fact that no agricultural activity was being carried out on the land by the assessee. The ld AR stated that it is an admitted fact that the assessee, being exporter of readymade garments, did not carry out any agricultural activity. Assessee never claimed that the land in question was an agricultural land exempted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi. 32. We find that the assessee's purchase and sale agreement of the said land depict the character of the land as agricultural land. The khasra girdawari produced by the assessee before the Assessing officer reflected Neb Sarai as village in which the said agricultural land is situated. We find that though the land is situated near a posh residential locality of Delhi, the authorities had not notified any change in the character of land i.e. from agriculture to residential use. There is no permission of the Government to carry out any residential activity on the land in question. The CIT(A) has given a finding of fact that even the registration for the same was banned at the time of purchase as well as at the time of sale by the assessee and therefore, assessee had purchased and sold the property on power of attorney/ agreement to sell on stamp paper of Rs.50/-. 33. We further find that the assessee had also filed RTI application on 12.04.2016 in order to verify the nature of usage of land. Vide letter- dated 17.06.2016, it was replied by the concerned authorities that the land in question being Khasra No.234/1, 237/2 and 237/4 is notified u/s 4 of Land Acquisition....