TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as follows: The assessee had received notice u/s. 142(1) dt. 23.8.2007 from the ITO (HQ)(CIB), Pune in the name of Suresh Vasudeo More. The appellant vide his letter dt. 4.9.07, sent by RPAD, informed the AO that his name was not Suresh Vasudeo More and that it appeared that the notice might have been wrongly sent to the appellant. The appellant was shocked when on 3.1.08 he received the order u/s. 144 framed by the ITO, Pune again in the name of Suresh Vasudeo More. The appellant is proceeding with a view that as the order was sent to his address and his first name and that of his father are correct, the order might be intended for him only. The name of the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and valid-ab-inito. 5. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that he had already brought forth the following facts before the AO. The appellant alongwith his brother and sister was owning agricultural land at village Shahabaj, Dist. Thane. The appellant alongwith the other co-owners was carrying on agricultural operations on the said land. The agricultural land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in and around 1979 vide awards declared by the Land Acquisition Officer. The agricultural land acquired under compulsory acquisition was not a capital asset being covered under the exemption provided u/s. 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act and accordingly the consideration received on compulsory acquisition did not attract a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce this contention of the appellant is totally besides the point. The plot of land allotted to the appellant and other co-owners was a capital asset for which the appellant had to pay a premium of ₹ 39,250/-. The facts of this case are different from the facts of the cases relied upon by the appellant viz ACIT Vs Shri Nirmal Bhogilal decided by Ld. ITAT G Bench, Mumbai in ITA No. 2942/M/2002 and the case of Smt. Sushiladevi Kantilal Shah Vs CIT, 208 ITR 912 (Guj). In the present case, the land under consideration has been obtained after paying a premium of ₹ 39,250/- which can be considered as the cost of acquisition of the land. In the present case, the land was allotted to the appellant and other co-owners vide lease agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suresh Vasudev More instead of Suresh Vasudev Gore . Similarly, notice u/s. 142(1) has also been issued in the name of Suresh Vasudev More . The Learned Counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice to the following case laws: i)CIT Vs Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 82 ITR 821(SC) ii)Srinath Suresh Chand Ramnaresh Vs CIT, 280 ITR 396 (All.) iii)P.N. Sasikumar Ors Vs CIT, 170 ITR 80 (Ker) iv)CIT Vs Bibhuti Bhushan Mallick Ors. 165 ITR 107 (Cal) v)Mrs. S.W. Chaudhari Anr Vs ITO, 82 ITD 725 (Pune) 9. It has been held that ITO s jurisdiction depends upon issuance of valid notice and when the notice is issued on a non existing person, the notice as well as consequent proceedings are null and void. 10. Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were allotted plot by CIDCO on 17.10.2002. The said rights were sold under agreement dt. 9.2.2003 for the lumpsum consideration of ₹ 12 lakhs. As the time gap between the two dates is not significant, it can be presumed that the value of land plot allotted on 17.1.2002 would be the same as on 9.2.2003 on which date the same was sold. The plot transferred for 12 lakhs on 9.2.2003 would have the same value as on 17.10.2002 i.e. the date of allotment. Accordingly, no capital gains will arise on sale of allotment on 9.2.2003 as the difference between the purchase value and sale value is Nil. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of ACIT, Range 16(2) Vs Shri Nirmal Bhogilal, ITA No. 2942/Mum/02 (Mum). 14. Further the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
