9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in not appreciating that jurisdiction of A.Y. 2001-02 could not have been assumed by the learned AO since A.Y. 2001-02 is beyond the period of six (6) prior years for which jurisdiction u/s 153 A is available. 3. The learned CIT(A)-IV, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that jurisdiction u/s 153C can't be assumed by any manner of assignment / transfer of a case u/s 127 of the ITA, 1961. He ought to have appreciated that jurisdiction u/s 153C has to be assumed in the specific manner provided u/s 153C. 4. The learned CIT(A)-IV, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that 7-12 extract of land (held for past many years as such) can't be any incriminating material which can trigger jurisdiction u/s 153C. 5. The learned CIT(A), erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additions of Rs. 1,15,00,000 made by the AO in the hands of the appellant with regard to the already offered following capital gains in the respective assessees : a. Mr. Jaideep Vitthal Ladkat Rs. 23 lacs b. Mrs. Meenakshi Vitthal Ladkat Rs. 23 lacs c. Mrs. Shilpa Jaideep Ladkat Rs. 23 lacs d. Mr. Prasanna Vitthal Ladkat Rs. 46 lacs 6. The appellant craves leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r observed "however, it is observed that the appellant in their submissions dated 19.02.2010 has objected to this notice". The CIT(A) was of the view that the said objection was not entertainable in appeal as the same had not been raised in the assessment stage. Further, reference was made to the provisions of section 292B and 292BB and it was held that it was not so committed. The second objection raised by the assessee that the documents represented the land sale which had been declared in the return of income and hence the document was not incriminating, was also rejected by the CIT(A). 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). It was pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee was ITO, Ward 5(3), Pune. However, the present assessment order was passed by ACIT, Central Circle 1(2), Pune. It was further stated by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the assumption of jurisdiction by the ACIT was incorrect as no satisfaction had been recorded and further, no search material had been transferred from the old Assessing Officer i.e. the Assessing Officer of Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee vehemently argued that the seized documents were not any incriminating material as defined under the Act as the said 7/12 extracts belonging to the Revenue and was a public document. It was vehemently argued by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that though the document was in the name of the assessee and the contents belong to the assessee, but the said document being a public document, could not be held to be a incriminating document vis-à-vis assessee. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Sinhgad Technical Education Society Vs. ACIT in ITA No.114 to 117/PN/2010 reported in (2011) 140 TTJ (Pune) 233 and also on Vijaybhai N. Chandrani Vs. ACIT reported in (2011) 333 ITR 436 (Guj) . 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that under the provisions of section 127 of the Act, the CIT for proper investigation of the cases, assigned both the cases of the searched person and also of the assessee, to the same Assessing Officer. So, the stage of recording of satisfaction and the issue of notice under section 153C of the Act was with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so executed and on 12.12.2000, development agreement between various family members of Vittal Shripati Ladkat i.e. assessee before us and M/s. Kumar Associates was entered into and the capital gain arising on the sale of the said share in the property was offered to tax in assessment year 2002-03 by all the members. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue raised in the present appeal is against the invoking the jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. Search and seizure operations were carried out at the premises of Shri Manish Prabhakar Ladkat and his wife and loose paper bundle was found and seized from his premises. The page Nos.15 to 19 of the said bundle were the 7/12 extracts for the lands owned by the assessee before us. Pursuant to the search proceedings, the jurisdictional CIT transferred the cases, both of the persons searched and the assessee to the ACIT, Central Circle 1(2), Pune. Thus, the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction over the persons searched from whose possession, the documents relating to the assessee were found and also of the assessee to whom the said papers related. The Assessing Officer therefore, issued a no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts recovered during the search having been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the proceedings to be invalid. 13. In the facts of the present case as pointed out at paras herein above, the Assessing Officer was holding the jurisdiction of the person searched under section 132 of the Act, from whose possession certain documents relating to the assessee were found. The said officer also held the jurisdiction of the present assessee before us and the satisfaction in such circumstances can be said to have been exercised by the Assessing Officer before initiating the proceedings under section 153C of the Act. 14. Another reliance placed by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Vimawal (supra), wherein it has been held that where the material found i.e. a loose paper did not relate to the person, then the notice under section 153C of the Act is to be quashed and the proceedings set aside. The issue raised before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Vijay M. Vimawal is factually different and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. Another as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any right on the said property. Thus, the property in relation to which the development agreement had been entered into was exclusively owned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer thus, observed that the capital gain arising on the sale of the property would be assessed in the hands of the assessee. As per the Assessing Officer, the full value of consideration whether received in part or in different years was to be taken into account for computing the capital gains which became chargeable in the year of transfer. The Assessing Officer computed the full value of the consideration received by the assessee and his family members and observed that value of Rs. 1.38 crores is to be considered in the hands of the assessee since he was the sole and exclusive owner of the property. Since the development agreement was entered into on 12.12.2000 i.e. relating to assessment year 2001-02, the capital gain was held to be taxable in the year of transfer. Reliance was placed upon the ratio laid down in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT reported in (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom). The assessee having offered capital gain in assessment year 2002-03, was held to be invalid and the total ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
