TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry For the Respondent: Shri Pravin Varma O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. Challenging the order dtd.04.05.2011 of the CIT (A)-I, Mumbai, the appellantcompany has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case and the legal provisions applicable thereto correctly and therefore erred in upholding the order of the AO. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment was properly reopened under section 147 of the I.T. Act and when the stamp duty authority had determined the value of ₹ 7.41 Crores aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed that the stamp duty, authorities had assessed the value of the said property at ₹ 7.41 Crores. Applying the provisions of section 50 C of the Act he held that capital gains was required to be worked out considering the full value of consideration received for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. Notice under section 148 read with section 147 was issued to the assessee on 08.01.2010 calling for the return to be filed as per the provisions of the Act.Vide its letter dated 05.02.2010, the assessee submitted that the return filed by the company on 31.10.2005 may be taken as the return filed in compliance to the notice under section 148 of the Act.The appellant company also requested the AO to furnish the reasons on basis of which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. Departmental representative (DR) submitted that notice issued under section 143 (2) of the Act was not contested by the appellant company during assessment proceedings, that section 292BB of the Act was applicable in the case under consideration, that the assessee company was barred from taking the issue of service of notice issued under section 143 (2) once it was not raised before the AO. He relied upon judgements of Panchavati Motors Private Ltd. (12 taxmann.com111), Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd.(11Taxmannn.com291). In rejoinder AR submitted that issue with regard to the applicability of section 292 BB has been deliberated upon and decided by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products Private Ltd.(117 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per issuance / service of notice in appellate proceedings, but the assessee is precluded from doing so for and from AY 2008-09. 7. We find that before the FAA the assessee-company had raised the objection with regard to issue of notice beyond the prescribed time limit. In the grounds of appeal filed before the FAA and in the statements of facts submitted to him, the assessee had clearly mentioned that notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued after 6 months i.e. after period stipulated by the Act lapsed. We find that in the matters of Panchavati Motors Private Ltd. and Aravali Engineers (supra) objection, with regard to issuance of notice after the prescribed limit, was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. But, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
