TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied to the assessee, which led the ld. CIT(A) to hold the re-assessment proceedings as invalid, we find that none of the parties before us have submitted the copy of reasons supplied to the assessee. The reasons recorded, as supplied to the assessee, are also not reproduced in any of the orders of authorities below. The contention of the ld. DR is that there is no variance in the reasons supplied to assessee and those proposed for approval. The substance of both is one and the same. In absence of copy of reasons supplied to the assessee before us, it is not possible to verify the alleged variance and to decide this issue at this stage. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) to examine whether the pith and substance of the reasons recorded as supplied to the assessee and the reasons contained in the proposal for approval is same or not. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 6459/Del./2015 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2017 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member For The Appellant : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Sh. Kartik Jain, CA Sh. D.K. Jain, CA ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the total income of assessee declared in the return of ₹ 4,14,740/- included only the income from house property and income from other sources, but no income as capital gains was declared by assessee in the said return of income. Therefore, on the premise of above information, the AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the IT Act after obtaining statutory approval from the competent authority. On being asked, the assessee submitted the details of cost of acquisition and computed long term capital loss on the sale of impugned property as under : Market value as on 01.04.1981 Approx. 27 lacs Indexed cost (27 lacs *4.80) 1,29,60,000/- Sale Consideration 65,00,000/- Long term capital loss 64,60,000/- Purchase of residential property u/s. 54 21,50,000/- The Assessing Officer further observed that there is no basis for adopting the cost of acquisition at ₹ 27 lacs as on 01.04.1981 and that there is no corroborating evidence to support the said cost of acquisition and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer, submitted a brief synopsis before us, which reads as under : Brief Facts of the Case :The case was reopened u/s 148 after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Notice u/s 148 was issued by the assessing officer after taking approval u/s 151(2) from Additional Commissioner of International Taxation, Delhi. Approval for issuing the notice was also accorded by the DIT International Tax, Delhi. Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143/147 after detailed investigation by making an addition of ₹ 1,48,97,037/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains against the sale of property. Finding of CIT (A) : Ld. CIT (A) quashed the assessment order on technical ground holding that Approval for issuing notice u/s 148 was accorded by the concerned CIT whereas as per section 151(2) satisfaction should be recorded by the concerned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax / Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. Ld. CIT (A) squarely relied of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SPL's Sidhartha Ltd. (2012) 17 Taxmann. Com 138. Revenue's Submission before the Hon'bie Bench :(1) Ld. CIT (A) while relying upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. From the plain reading of sub section 2 of the section 151 of the IT Act it appears that for reopening of such case after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year wherein no regular assessment has been completed u/s 143{3) or 147, satisfaction of Joint Commissioner is mandatory. From the facts of the case under reference it is proved that Addl. DIT Range -3, International Tax, Delhi has duly recorded his satisfaction for reopening the case and issue of notice u/s 148. This fact apparently distinguishable from the facts of the case relied upon by the Ld. CIT. In fact, Ld. CIT (A) has misplaced the facts of the case while relying on the said judgment. 3. Merely on the basis that Addl. DIT had after recording his satisfaction sent the file to the DIT instead of sending it back to the AO cannot be the basis of quashing assessment order. Such type of inadvertent procedural mistake is curable u/s 92BB of the Income Tax Act. 1961. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A). Therefore, the decision reached by the ld. CIT(A) on this count cannot be supported. 8. Adverting to the second issue regarding variance between the proposal sent for approval and the reasons recorded as supplied to the assessee, which led the ld. CIT(A) to hold the re-assessment proceedings as invalid, we find that none of the parties before us have submitted the copy of reasons supplied to the assessee. The reasons recorded, as supplied to the assessee, are also not reproduced in any of the orders of authorities below. The contention of the ld. DR is that there is no variance in the reasons supplied to assessee and those proposed for approval. The substance of both is one and the same. In absence of copy of reasons supplied to the assessee before us, it is not possible to verify the alleged variance and to decide this issue at this stage. It is, however, nowhere mentioned that the addition made by the AO in re-assessment is not in consonance with the reasons recorded or has no nexus therewith. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) to examine whether the pith and substance of the reasons recorded as supplied to the assessee and the reasons contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
