TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is bad in law and against the cause of natural justice as the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended the date till 30th June 2021 and the notice to the petitioner was issued on 31.03.2021 and hence barred by limitation of time. 2. For that in fact and under the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer calculated a capital gains of RS. 48,68,542/- on arbitrary basis which is bad in law and against the cause of natural justice. 3. For that in fact and under the circumstances of the case the Revenue conceded that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. 4. That in fact and under the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer did not take into consideration the cost of acquisition of the property while calculating the Capital Gains on Joint Development of Property despite the documents having been produced before him, which is bad in law and against the cause of natural justice. 5. For that in fact and under the circumstances of the case your petitioner has no source of income except rental inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts, namely, (i) the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings and (ii) the addition made on account of Long-Term Capital Gains. 6.2.1 Issue No. 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings The appellant has contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2022 are invalid and barred by limitation, placing reliance on various judicial pronouncements and the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149 of the Act. In the remand report, the AO has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and has stated that the directions issued therein extend to notices issued during the transition period, thereby setting aside the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts which had quashed notices issued u/s 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, it is observed that while the AO, in the remand report, has placed reliance on the judgment in Ashish Agarwal, he has failed to take cognizance of the factual distinction arising from subsequent judicial developments. In the case of Rajeev Bansal, the Department has acceded to the position that reassess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, these submissions remain unsubstantiated, as no cogent documentary evidence has been brought on record to rebut the findings of the AO or to demonstrate that the execution of the Joint Development Agreement did not result in transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. On a holistic consideration of the rival submissions, the remand report and the material available on record, it is observed that the AO has passed the assessment order after duly examining the Joint Development Agreement and applying the relevant statutory provisions. The appellant failed to file the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and also failed to furnish complete details during the assessment proceedings despite adequate opportunities being provided. The findings of the AO regarding the occurrence of transfer and the consequent computation of Long Term Capital Gains are supported by the facts on record and are in accordance with law. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 48,68,542/- made on account of Long Term Capital Gains is hereby confirmed, and the ground raised by the appellant on this issue is dismissed. 6.3 In the result, the appeal filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, who along with the portion of land belonging to your petitioner combined the land belonging to another owner Smt. Roma Das who was in possession of a land measuring more or less 1 cottah 2 Chittaks and 39 Sq. ft., who became the owner of her portion on 14.12.2020. The two properties were then amalgamated vide a Deed of Amalgamation dated 27.01.2014. As per the said agreement your petitioner was to receive the entire first floor of the proposed building to be sanctioned by The Kolkata Municipal Corporation along with one car parking space on the ground floor. Your petitioner was also to receive a sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 (Rupees Three lakhs) only at the time of signing of the Development Agreement and Rs. 4,00,000.00 (Rupees Four lakhs) only on the completion of the building. As per the terms of the Development Agreement your petitioner along with the other owner had to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the property to the Developer on obtaining the sanctioned plan from The Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Hence there was no question of transfer of property in the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16. Further the market value of the whole property w....