TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified reasoning. They are also in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was not confronted by the AO before estimating the cost of acquisition at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. and thus, the AO was not right in estimating the cost of land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. without any basis and keeping aside rather ignoring the report of the registered valuer submitted before him during assessment proceedings. In our opinion, the first question is a power question of fact and we do not find any error at the end of the tribunal in taking the aforesaid view. Reopening of assessment - non- issuance of notice u/s.143(2) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal upheld the finding of CIT(A) that there is not any iota of evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of acquisition of land at ₹ 99/per sq.mtr. As on 01.04.1981 even though the registered valuer has not given any comparable case of sale instance? ( ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue without considering the assessee's own letter dated 21.04.2014 stating that notice u/s.143(2) was issued to him? 3. With regard to the first question, which has been proposed by the Revenue, the findings recorded by the appellate tribunal are as under: - 10. Replying to the above, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) after considering entire facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is also discernable that the AO has completely ignore the report of the registered valuer and without any discussion thereon estimated the cost at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. without any reasonable basis and justified reasoning. We are also in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was not confronted by the AO before estimating the cost of acquisition at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. and thus, the AO was not right in estimating the cost of land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. without any basis and keeping aside rather ignoring the report of the registered valuer submitted before him during assessment proceedings. 4. In our opinion, the first question is a power question of fact and we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) The diary of notice server should have the details of having served or not served the notice. The assessing officer failed to give any reference to any of the above in support of her claim that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been issued. On the contrary efforts were made to find references of issuance of notice in the replied submitted by the appellant during the assessing officer. I have gone through the letters of the appellant referred to by the assessing officer in the remand report and is of the opinion that these are of no help to her. I have also gone through the counter comments of the appellant on the remand report of the assessing officer who has reasonably explained that no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s.143(2) of the Act as void ab initio. In this case, reference has also been made to the following judgments on the issue involved: i) Nesman Farm Pvt. Ltd. ITAT Delhi. ii) ACIT Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362. iii) CIT Vs. Salman Khan ITA No.508 of 2010. iv) DCIT Vs. M/s. Silver Line ITA No.1809, 1504, 1505 1506/ DEL/2013. Keeping in view the above decisions as well as the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the present reassessment proceedings are invalid in the eyes of law because the assessing officer has not followed the mandatory procedure of issuing the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. On being asked by the Bench, the DR could not show us any other material or evidence to show that the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) are either perverse or incorrect or carries misinterpretation of provisions of the Act or wrong appreciation of the facts. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that the AO invoked provisions of S.147 of the Act without having valid jurisdiction and thus, the notice u/s.148 of the Act has also to be held as bad in law and not valid. Further, even on verification of reassessment proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) could not find any iota of evidence or document establishing that before framing reassessment order u/s.143(3) r/w. s.147 of the Act, the AO issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
