TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has not complied with the notice u/s. 148 as no return of income was filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 - Held that:- Though the said return was filed by the assessee beyond the period of time frame as specified u/s. 139(5) of the Act, however, the same was filed much prior to the completion of assessment. Even if the said return was not considered by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment, the same could have been treated as return in response to the notice u/s. 148 as requested by the assessee. Further, we find that the Assessing Officer never communicated to the assessee that the return filed on 31-03-2013 cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. Hence, the objections raised by the Department against the return dated 31-03-2013 are unsustainable - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2828/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Assessee : Shri V.L. Jain For the Revenue : Shri Rajesh Gawli ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Pune dated 30-08-2017 for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the valuation of land at ₹ 20 Per Sq. Mt. as against that of ₹ 240/- per Sq. Mt. claimed by the appellant and thereby making an addition of ₹ 36,81,753/- as additional income from Capital Gains. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal or add to the same, if deemed necessary. Additional ground filed on 20-04-2018 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that reference to Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not mandatory and failing which the impugned assessment was valid in eyes of law. Additional ground filed on 20-06-2018 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of relying on an independent Valuation Report in case of some other assessee for the purpose of adopting the value as on 01.04.1981 for determining capital gains. 3. Shri V.L. Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer has not provided reasons for reopening to the assessee till the time of passing assessment order. The assessment order has been passed in violation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had filed revised return of income on 31- 03-2013 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the end of the assessment year. Hence, the revised return of income is nonest in the eye of law. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to treat the nonest return as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The request of the assessee could not have been accepted by the Assessing Officer as the return filed on 31-03-2013 had no legal sanctity. The ld. DR further submitted that initially the assessee did not respond to the notice issued on 24-03-2015. It was only after the reminders issued on 11-08-2015 and 17-10-2015 that the assessee finally responded. In the notice u/s. 148 dated 24-03-2015 the assessee was given 30 days time to file the return of income. However, the assessee failed to comply with the conditions of the notice. Now, the assessee cannot agitate that the conditions set out by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ors. (supra) were not complied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the Department, the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee has not complied with the notice u/s. 148 as no return of income was filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The return dated 31-03-2013 which the assessee had requested to treat as return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 was filed beyond the period of one year form the end of the assessment year. Hence, the same is nonest. We do not find merit in the submissions of ld. DR. Though the said return was filed by the assessee beyond the period of time frame as specified u/s. 139(5) of the Act, however, the same was filed much prior to the completion of assessment. Even if the said return was not considered by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment, the same could have been treated as return in response to the notice u/s. 148 as requested by the assessee. Further, we find that the Assessing Officer never communicated to the assessee that the return filed on 31-03-2013 cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. Hence, the objections raised by the Department against the return dated 31-03-2013 are unsustainable. The Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order in violation of directions of Hon ble Supreme Court of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
