Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (2) TMI 1150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ult on the ground that enquiries should have been made more elaborate. Certificate issued by Tehsildar in the instant could not be disbelieved by the Assessing Officer inter alia for the reason that the Tehsildar is also a public officer. Certificates issued by the public officers are generally believed by the other officers as public duty unless there is some material, which suggest that such certificate has been obtained under fraud etc. Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the ld. CIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act that Tehsildar’s certificate should have been corroborated with other evidence. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act for the above stated reasons is hereby set aside and quashed. Since .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , action of Ld. Pr. CIT in holding that subject agricultural land as capital asset and holding the appellant is leviable to be taxed on short term capital gain on the transfer of subject agricultural land is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Appellant filed paper book consisting 159 pages, case law compilation consisting 262 pages apart from the synopsis running into 14 pages. 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(DR) filed a synopsis running into 3 pages. Main thrust of the counsel of the assessee was that jurisdiction assumed u/s 263 of the Act was bad in law as assessment order cannot be said to erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and the issue of exemption from capital gain was considered in asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs of the A.O and the ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions relied upon by both the sides. Assessment order in this case was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 07.12.2015 which mentions that the ld. counsel for the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee and explained the case and submitted all the details as called for during the proceedings. It is evident from the assessment order that the assessee was provided ample opportunities and the ld. counsel for the assessee appeared over various dates of hearing i.e. 21.07.2015, 19.10.2015, 05.11.2015 and on other dates as per the order sheet. The Assessing Officer further mentioned in the assessment order that details were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt order after due consideration of the facts, it cannot be said that the assessment order was erroneous as assessment was passed after application of mind. It has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 [Bom] that the Assessing Officer having raised queries and perused evidences and having been satisfied with the claim a revision by the CIT was not justified. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oracle Systems Corporation Vs. ADIT 380 ITR 232 have held that when assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, there is presumption that assessment order has been passed after application of mind. Reliance is also placed on CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd 367 ITR 458 [Bom]; CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 332 ITR 231 [ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay High Court in the case of Jewel of India Vs. CIT 325 ITR 92, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. International Travel House Ltd reported in 344 ITR 554, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd 303m ITR 256, therefore, from this stand point also, order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and is therefore, quashed. 7. Appellant s counsel Dr. Rakesh Gupta raised one more issue that CIT could not have taken upon himself to deny the exemption and best power of CIT could have to set aside the order. The decisions relied upon were ACIT Vs Manas Salt Iodization Industries Pvt. Ltd 169 TTJ 172 [Guwahati] and Bharat petroleum 350 ITR 44 [Mumbai]. Since we have quashed the order u/s 263, we do not thin to deal with this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates