TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 31-8-2017 - H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : Salil Aggarwal, Adv. For the Department : T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 16.2.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. That the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed by the Ld. ITO, Ward - Baraut (Baghpat) u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in making an addition of ₹ 24,57,627/- by taking recourse to the provisions of section 147 r/w sec.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 1.1 That the reassessment as framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the LT. Act is wholly illegal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s goodself and the Ld. AO regarding seeking an approval from the relevant jurisdiction. 2.1 That no such adverse finding has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) about the objection raised by the assessee in his rejoinder to the remand report for the approval of issuing the notice u/s 147/148 of the LT. Act, 1961 by ACIT, Range - 2, when the assessee's case was lying with ACIT, Range -1. 3. That in any case and without prejudice to the above, the Id CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by accepting the Fair Market Value of the Property as on 01.04.1981 as applied by the Ld. AO. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not considering the valuation adopted by the Government approved valuer and rejecting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity be given to make the ends of natural justice meet. The impugned order passed be set aside being bad in law and in any case, the addition of ₹ 24,57,627/- be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold a land measuring 0.695 hectares for a sale consideration of ₹ 8,00, 000/- on 12.03.2007 and on the basis of information that the circle rate of property sold by assessee as per Stamping Authority was ₹ 27,00,000/-, the AO issued notices dated 26.06.2008, 04.07.2008, 11.02.2013, 23.05.2013 and 04,06.2013 and replies thereof were also filed by assessee dated 10.06.2008, 04.08.2008, 28.08.2013, 30.05.2013 and 06.11.2913. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Gujarat High Court) reported in 268 ITR 48. (iv) ITO vs M/S M.L. Creations (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 4009/DeI/2016. 4. On the contrary, the learned Sr. DR, Sh. T. Vasantha, objected to the above argument of assessee and submitted that non disposal of objections vide a speaking order under section 147 of the Act is a mere irregularity and can be cured by referring the matter back to the file of learned AO. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders of the authorities below. I find that assessee vide ground nos. 1 to 1.4 has specifically challenged the proceedings so initiated under section 147 of the Act and more so, the non disposal of objections by the AO through a separate speaking order. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee's objections against the notice uls. 148 of the I. T. Act, before proceeding with the assessment, hence, he held that the subsequent assessment order is bad in law and deserving of being quashed . 5.2 On going through the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered view that the legal issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions/judgments, hence, respectfully following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd reported in 259 ITR 19 and PClT vs Tupperware India Ltd. (Delhi High Court) reported in 284 CTR 68 and of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO vs M/s M.L. Creations (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 4009/DeI/2016, I quash the assessment order dated 15.1L2014 passed by AO on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
