TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act and consequently cancelling the assessment despite the fact that the original assessment was not completed under s. 143(3) but merely processed under s. 143(1)(a)." 2. The assessee was deriving income from salary, pension and interest income. The return was filed showing an income of Rs. 76,920 which was accepted under s. 143(1) on 23rd March, 1989. Later on while examining the wealth-tax records, it was noticed by the AO" that the assessee had sold 25 bighas of agricultural land at Khathipura within the municipal limit of Jaipur to M/s Indira Graha Nirwan Samiti for Rs. 7 lakhs in 1981. The land was transferred to the society through an agreement with the society and possession was actually handed over to the society for being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of capital gains Rs. 3,45,000 vis-a-vis cost of acquisition Rs. 10,000 and not allowing deduction under s. 48(2). The CIT(A) found that in view of insertion of sub-cl. (v) to cl. 47 of s. 2 w.e.f. 1st April 1988, the AO on the basis of audit objection issued notice under s. 148 and charged the above amount to capital gain for the asst. yr. 1988-89. The CIT(A) while cancelling the proceedings initiated under s. 148 has observed as under: "7. I have considered the entire matter carefully. In the above case all the material facts were fully disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) of the IT Act. All the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the AO. Under these circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view in nature which is outside the purview of s. 147. It was further submitted that the possession of land was given in asst. yr. 1981-82 i.e. much before the introduction of the amendment of s. 2(47) which has come into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1988. It was also submitted that the amendment is not from retrospective effect. Therefore, it is not applicable in this case. It was also argued that the transaction in question does not fit in the definition of transfer as is existed during the relevant time. During the accounting period relevant to asst. yr. 1988-89 no transfer has taken place, therefore no element of any capital gain can be taxed during the year under appeal. It was, therefore, submitted that no interference in the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
