TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer. 2) He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a) The Appellant has already intimated the change of address to the A.O. vide its letter dated 25TH SEPT., 2006 attached herewith as ANNEXURE - I b) Serving the notices under section 143(2) at the old address is not the proper service of the notice when the letter for change of address was already on the record of the A.O. and therefore there was not proper compliance under the act and it did not comply with the provisions of section 143(2) of the act. c) Such a huge addition on the working woman, without application of mind, has taken the toll of her health. d) The CIT erred in mentioning in his order that the assessee mentioned in the return address of Flat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the return of income including the cost of acquisition and cost of development incurred on the said property however he completely ignored the said details and went ahead to make an addition of Rs, 58,13,728/- rejecting the claim of cost of development and further rejecting the exemption under section 54 for investment in the new property. The brought forward Long Term Capital Gains pertaining to AY 2004-05 was also not set-off against the Long Term Capital Gains calculated for the year under consideration. b) The CIT erred to appreciate that even if the evidence for cost of development was not submitted than too the whole of capital gains was covered by deduction U/s. 54. c) The CIT erred in not giving deduction under section 54 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005-06. i) The Appellant prays that the addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gains of ₹ 58,13,728/- be deleted. j) Without prejudice to above the addition made should be restored to the file of A.O. 2. The impugned assessment has been framed vide order dated 12/12/2007 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961(the Act). For default of appearance in response to various notices issued by the AO the assessment has been framed under section 144 of the Act, whereby the income of the assessee has been assessed at ₹ 69,66,219/- including long term capital gain of ₹ 58,13,728/- against the returned income of ₹ 5,40,490/-. The assessee had declared property income at ₹ 1,23,900/- and interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that assessee s Authorised Representative s address, phone number and email ID was also on record of the AO but Authorized Representative of the assessee was never informed about proceedings taken against the assessee. It was submitted that the address was changed due to the change of address of the husband of the assessee who was an employee. Ld. CIT(A) after considering these submissions has arrived at a conclusion that this ground of the assessee was having no substance as the arguments submitted by the assessee are vague. The AO did not have any reason to send notices to the new address. The address on which the notices were sent was duly mentioned in the return of income which has been assessed and inter-alia informing the chang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition to these submissions assessee also submitted copy of sale agreement in support of contention that sale proceeds were invested in flat No.102 of 10th floor of Solitaire developed by Deepti Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Copy of return of income for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 was also filed. Vide letter dated 16/12/2009 it was submitted that assessee worked continuously for 25 years from 1976 to 2000 at Kota and at New Delhi before shifting to Mumbai. A sum of ₹ 11,47,000/- was received by the assessee on sale of flat at New Delhi in financial year 2003-04, which was deposited in RBI bonds and fixed deposits and it was submitted that assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54 of the Act and brought forward long term ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it has rightly been held by him that there was no lack of opportunity given to the assessee. 8. We have heard both parties on this issue. Existence of letter filed by the assessee on 26/9/2006 in which the change of address was informed is not denied by the revenue. Rather, Ld. DR was having the assessment record with him. The letter was on file. Ld. CIT(A) has also found that this letter was on file but he has observed that new address on the said letter was not mentioned. As against that it is the contention of the Ld. AR that the said letter was filed alongwith the return filed for assessment year 2006-07 and copy of the said letter was also submitted to the AO. If this letter is on record and notices have gone at old address t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
