TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact does not admit of any doubt that the substantive assessment in the hands of Mool Chand, HUF on 28.3.13, it would not have been possible for the AO to record the reasons in this case on 26.3.13. It suggests that the reasons and the notice u/s 148 of the Act are ante dated or at the lease that they are not properly recorded. No proper issuance or service of notice u/s 148 of the Act and no reliance could be made on the reasons recorded in this matter. We, therefore, hold that there is no proper issuance and service of notice u/s 148 in this matter and consequently, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2640/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2019 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in fact and in law by upholding the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on merits without giving just a cursory look to the reasons recorded and also quoted in the assessment as well as appellate order. In view of above facts, it is prayed the assessment proceedings may be held as null and void . 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by assuming that the land in question is covered in the definition of capital asset in view of the notification issued by CBDT vide F.No. 164/03/87 ITAI dated 06-01-1994 by relying on the text from TAXMANN while ignoring the official Gazette notification produced by the assessee during appellate proceedings and also ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee, inter alia, submitted at the outset that the core issue involved in this appeal regarding validity of reopening u/s. 147/148 stands decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of one of co-owners of the same land which was sold, namely, Smt. Savita D/o Late Mool Chand (ITA No. 2642/Del/2016) vide order dated 04.12.2018 in the identical facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we find substance in the contention of assessee that the core issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue by passing a non speaking order and also without giving even a cursory look at the reasons recorded and also quoted in the assessment order. It is further contended by the assessee that the learned CIT(A) erred in assuming that the land in question is covered by the definition of the capital asset in view of the notification issued by the CBDT vide F.No.l64/03/87/TA/ dated 6.1.1994 by relying on the text from Taxmann while ignoring the official gazette produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and also admitted by the AO in his remand report that there is a mistake in the name of the place which is Dhantera in the notification while the land in question now was in Dharuhera. 5. At the outset, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income Tax, Rewari Range, Rewari after recording the reasons. The extract of the reasons is as follows: On the basis of AIR information available in the case of M/s Mool Chand HUF that said HUF had sold a land at Dharuhera for a consideration of ₹ 8,89,12,500/- in the F.Y. 2005-06for A.Y. 2006- 07 which was a capital assets, therefore, notice u/s 148for A.Y. 2006-0-7 was issued to M/s Mool Chand HUF. During the course assessment proceedings Smt. Shanti Devi wife, Ajit Singh Sunil son and Smt. Savita-Shashi Bala daughter of late Sh. Mool Chand filed a reply stating therein that M/s Mool Chand HUF was not in existence in past nor present. They further stated that he land sold b Smt. Shanti Devi wife, Ajit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, notice us/ 148 for AY 2006-07 was issued to M/s Mool Chand HUF. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Mool Chand HUF, Smt. Shanti Devi, wife and Ajit Singh-sunil son and Smt. Savita-Shashi Bala daughter of late Mool Chand filed a reply stating therein that M/s Mool Chand HUF was not in existence in past nor present. They further stated that the land sold by Smt. Shanti Devi wife and Ajit Singh-Sunil son and Smt. Savita-Shashi Bala daughter of the late Mool Chand near Police Station Dharuhera on 29.12.2005 was in their individual capacity. Keeping in viw the facts, substantive assessment was made in the hands of M/s Mool Chand HUF and to protect the interest of revenue, assessment proceedings are being initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
