TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was reopened but some other additions have been made by the AO, therefore, the AO does not have jurisdiction to make such other additions in absence of any addition made for which the assessment was re-opened in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3985/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2017 - SH. R. K. Panda, J. Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department by : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR ORDER R. K. Panda, 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2015 of Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sold for ₹ 1500000/- on 11.05.2006, received ₹ 1406250/- 1/3 share in the land sold for 4218750/-, on 11.05.2006, and received ₹ 6,50,000/- half share received on agreement for sale of land to Sh. Dinesh Singh S/o Sh. Arjun Singh Padiyawas on 11.05.2006 and received ₹ 1300000/- received on agreement for sale of land to Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Gajender Padiyawas on 08.05.2006 totaling to ₹ 38,56,250/- .The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B at ₹ 17,96,500/- on account of proposed investment out of sale of agricultural land. The assessee has submitted that the consideration received on sale agreement were incurred on construction of house. The assessee was asked to furnish the proof of investment made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any documentary evidence for construction of house and for investment made in the construction of house, therefore, the assessee is also, not entitled to deduction u/s 54 F of the Act. The Calculation of capital gain is worked out as under: Sale consideration ₹ 38,56,250/- Cost of acquisition claimed in return by the assessee ₹ 1,29,750/- Capital gain ₹ 37,26,500/- Deduction u/s 54B ₹ 1,00,000/- Balance capital gain ₹ 36,26,500/- 4. The AO accordingly made addition of ₹ 36,26,500/- to the total income of the assessee on account of capital gain. Further, the AO also made addition of ₹ 38,362/- on account of interest which was not disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between prima facie inference arrival in the reasons recorded and information. The Tribunal has held that the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee. Accordingly, the reopening was held to be invalid by relying on various decisions. He accordingly submitted that this being a covered matter in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Tribunal as well as decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court, the reassessment proceedings should be quashed. 8. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on on the order of Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the initiation of those proceedings seized to survive. Since, in the instant case, there was no addition made in the assessment order on account of which the assessment was reopened but some other additions have been made by the AO, therefore, the AO does not have jurisdiction to make such other additions in absence of any addition made for which the assessment was re-opened in the light of the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the re-assessment proceedings have to be quashed. 10. Even otherwise, also the reopening was made on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has made cash deposit of ₹ 19 lakhs. I find identical issue had come up before this be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
