TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of taking the AO one of the possible view into the matter. Therefore, the decisions relied for assessee would not support the claim of the assessee. During the course of arguments, for assessee admitted that AO after making enquiry into the matter in issue i.e. issue of taxability of sale proceeds on the above referred sale deeds has rejected the claim of the assessee and made the addition against the assessee which is subject matter in appeal before CIT(A). This fact would strengthen the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT that AO did not examine the issue as per law. Therefore, CIT correctly considered the assessment order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. No infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos. 1213 & 1214/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. For the Revenue : Smt. Paramita M Biswas, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals by the same assessee are directed against the different orders of Pr. CIT-Dehradun dated 31/12/2015 u/s 263 of the I.T. Act f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the consent of all co-owners entered into an agreement with M/s City Developers to sale the said land in the year 2002. In the agreement, it was mentioned that the total land alongwith a house built thereon, tin shed standing thereon, two tube wells and presently crops standing on the said land alongwith all agricultural accessories present on the land situated in Mauza, Central Hope Town, Dehradun. Later on both the parties could not perform their parts of the agreement. At the same time Shri Chaman Lal Kapoor father of the assessee died on 22nd August, 2004 without executing the terms of the contract. But the agreement to sale was honored by his successor. In support of his claim, the copies of the purchase deeds and agreement to sale between Shri Chaman Lal Kapoor and M/s City Developers were furnished. Copy of Khasra and intimation u/s 143(1) for AY 2004-05 of Sh. Chaman Lal Kapoor showing the agricultural income was also filed. The Ld. Pr. CIT on perusal of the agreement noticed that vide para 3 of the agreement, the second party M/s City Developers has been given option to have the sale deed executed in his name or in the name of his nominee by way of one or more sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of this submission, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied upon order of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO 57 SOT 90 in which it was held as under: IT: Where Hyderabad Airport Development Authority had been constituted under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 as a Special Area Development Authority by State Government, it cannot be treated as a municipality for purposes of provisions of section 2(14). 5.1 He has referred to page 7 of the Paper Book which is order sheet for AY 2006-07 of the AO. On 06/01/2014 the AO required the assessee to explain how the lands sold are covered under agricultural land and also explain sale proceeds. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee filed the reply on 20/01/2014 and the AO passed the order on 30/01/2014, therefore, the AO examined all the material before him. He has also referred to the order sheet for subsequent assessment year 2007-08, copies of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds in question were sold in piece meal to different purchasers and M/s City Developers has no objection to the sale made. Lands were sold in sq. mtrs. The sale deeds were executed in assessment year under appeal. The Ld. PCIT also found that the land sold is situated within the industrial notified area of Uttaranchal and have been purchased for an industrial purposes. These facts have also not been disputed by Ld. Counsel for assessee. Ld. Counsel for assessee referred to order sheet of the AO PB 7 for AY 2006-07 in which the AO vide order sheet dated 06.01.2014 required the assessee to explain how the land sold are covered under agricultural land the case was adjourned to 20.01.2014. On 20.01.2014 assessee filed reply which is accepted as it is and AO passed the assessment order on 30.01.2014. The AO in the order sheet as well as in the assessment order did not mention as to how the land in question was agricultural land particularly when in the sale deed it is specifically mentioned that the land sold is situated within the industrial notified area of Uttaranchal and the land is purchased for industrial purposes. The lands falling in Industrial notified area could never be consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no question of taking the AO one of the possible view into the matter. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for assessee would not support the claim of the assessee. It may also be noted here that during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for assessee admitted that AO after making enquiry into the matter in issue i.e. issue of taxability of sale proceeds on the above referred sale deeds has rejected the claim of the assessee and made the addition against the assessee which is subject matter in appeal before Ld.CIT(A). This fact would strengthen the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT that AO did not examine the issue as per law. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT correctly considered the assessment order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. We confirm the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1214/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08): 11. The issue is same in this appeal as is considered in AY 2006- 07. Following the reasons for decisions for AY 2006-07 (supra), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 12. In the result, ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
